Indian Foreign Policy

[abhischekcc]

Any nation in the BRICS should have top priority for India. So even China with whom India has tense relations with should have higher priority over any non BRICS nations such as Japan. For example, Japan will always give higher priority to the US over India. This is the way it is. Even in BRICS India will have to assign different priority level to different members; I would say from Indian interest, the priority should be: Russia, Brazil, South Africa and China in that order.

Not necessarily true. Japan under Abe is moving towards an US-independent policy, and the country that is most unhappy about this is China.

Situation in Asia is evolving rapidly, and the way forward is not clear. China is wooing India to strengthen itself against the US. Its decision to invite India into APEC is more than just quid-pro-quo for India agreeing to station BRICS Bank HQ in Shaghai, China is also calculating that India in APEC will be counter-weight to US. They are probably thinking that benefits of getting India in now will be higher than the costs of keeping India out.

[disha]

China inviting India to APEC is another foreign policy coup which Indian #mediapimps are not talking about!!!! Instead they are talking about Suar-Vaidik summit!

[Karan Dixit]

Any nation in the BRICS should have top priority for India. So even China with whom India has tense relations with should have higher priority over any non BRICS nations such as Japan. For example, Japan will always give higher priority to the US over India. This is the way it is. Even in BRICS India will have to assign different priority level to different members; I would say from Indian interest, the priority should be: Russia, Brazil, South Africa and China in that order.

Not necessarily true. Japan under Abe is moving towards an US-independent policy, and the country that is most unhappy about this is China.

Situation in Asia is evolving rapidly, and the way forward is not clear. China is wooing India to strengthen itself against the US. Its decision to invite India into APEC is more than just quid-pro-quo for India agreeing to station BRICS Bank HQ in Shaghai, China is also calculating that India in APEC will be counter-weight to US. They are probably thinking that benefits of getting India in now will be higher than the costs of keeping India out.

BRICS is a business alliance. That is all it is. China is and will be India's enemy as long as it is in possession of India's territory and continues to oppress our Tibetan brothers and sisters. India is not in a dire need of military alliance which is what Japan is looking for. You have to realize that Japan is feeling a bit insecure right now because of Obama's lack of overt support for Japan. That will change with the arrival of new US president.

I agree that Japan is perhaps among handful of nations with whom there is a potential for full military alliance but after Japan's defeat, it has lost its political independence and its foreign policies have at times been harmful to India. Once upon a time, we already had a very strong alliance with Japan. It was Japan who provided arms to INA in its struggle for India's freedom from Britain. I hope one day India and Japan will enjoy the same level for friendship again.

[disha]

And here you go #mediapimps ...

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/pm ... 47781.html

Fortaleza: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday night finally held talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a day after it was put off as the Russian leader was delayed by his engagements in Brasilia.

Modi was to meet Putin after his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday night but Putin was delayed by his bilateral engagement with host President Dilma Rousseff in the capital.

Speaking in Hindi, the PM said India was excited to host the Russian leader in December.

On microblogging website Twitter, the PM said he talked about strengthening Russia-India ties.

On the sidelines of the BRICS summit here, Modi conveyed his sincere appreciation and admiration for Putin’s decisive leadership in deepening and expanding the India-Russia special and privileged strategic partnership.

The Prime Minister further expressed deep appreciation for Russia’s friendship and unstinting bilateral and international support for India’s economic development and security since the early days of India’s independence.

Modi also reaffirmed that relations with Russia will continue to enjoy the priority that they always had in India’s foreign policy.

The PM added that he looked forward to working with the Russian President to further deepen and broad-base the strategic partnership including in the areas of defence, nuclear energy, space, energy, trade and investment, people-to-people contacts and addressing regional and global challenges.

The two leaders looked forward to their Annual Summit in Delhi in December 2014 as an opportunity to outline a bold vision and roadmap for their relationship in the years ahead.

After holding talks with Putin here, the PM left for Brasilia to participate in the sixth BRICS Summit with South American countries.

[SSridhar]

Any nation in the BRICS should have top priority for India. So even China with whom India has tense relations with should have higher priority over any non BRICS nations such as Japan. For example, Japan will always give higher priority to the US over India. This is the way it is. Even in BRICS India will have to assign different priority level to different members; I would say from Indian interest, the priority should be: Russia, Brazil, South Africa and China in that order.

I do not understand the context in which you seem to suggest that BRICS must have priority over Japan. There was no such issue. The issue is not that Modi must have gone to Tokyo instead of to Brasilia, if that is what I understand that you imply.

The issue was that Modi had sufficient time between June 19 and July 9 to have made an official visit to Tokyo especially as the MEA had announced such a visit sometime in June and it was being looked forward to in Tokyo too. Abe made a great gesture by coming to New Delhi on Jan 26 even skipping the first day of the Diet session, something that apparently is a first for a Japanese PM to do not attending the first day's session. And that too, after a hectic programme at Davos and long flights from Europe and then to & fro India and hardly for two days in Delhi. Abe's visit came after a rare visit by the Japanese Emperor and his wife to India just a month earlier. So, the momentum was building up. Besides, there is absolutely no difference between the BJP & INC in the approach to Japan as Modi himself has demonstrated earlier. It was therefore just a continuation of the existing policy without any reset in policy that would have needed time for a re-think. Symbolism matters in diplomacy a lot. Now, the slew of meetings with China (Weng Yi's Delhi visit, Ansari/Nirmala Seetharaman's China visit, meeting Xi Jinping now) stands in stark contrast to the avoidable bitterness with Japan. Not that for every China meeting, there must be a Japanese meeting, but there was a promise of a visit to Tokyo that was not handled in an effective way even if there is a valid reason why it could not take place. The Japanese Foreign Office is upset that it came to know of the cancellation only through the media.

[disha]

SSridharji,

Reading from your POV, the Japanese could have been better handled diplomatically. Did the MEA goof up purposely? Or are we still reading too much in the news?

India had limited opportunities., getting the BRICS buttoned down and in the bonus get access to APEC. And to be fair, India has done more than necessary sucking up to Japanese in the run up to the nuclear treaty. It is that when NKoreans are shooting rockets that Japanese woke up and started looking at India?

[SSridhar]

Not necessarily true. Japan under Abe is moving towards an US-independent policy, and the country that is most unhappy about this is China.

Situation in Asia is evolving rapidly, and the way forward is not clear. China is wooing India to strengthen itself against the US. Its decision to invite India into APEC is more than just quid-pro-quo for India agreeing to station BRICS Bank HQ in Shaghai, China is also calculating that India in APEC will be counter-weight to US. They are probably thinking that benefits of getting India in now will be higher than the costs of keeping India out.

Very true. In fact, the East & South East Asian countries are not quite convinced that the US would come to their rescue if, God forbid, China goes on the offensive and they are seeking hedging. At the same time, the US & Japan are far more entangled with each other. Abe has the full support of the US for dismantling its pacifist constitution and that probably stems from the realization that the US needs as many hands as it can get for both military and economic confrontation with China. Hence the TPP and the rival APEC.

I agree that this is a great opportunity for us to derive maximum benefits from the neo-Cold War which is not based on ideologies unlike earlier. However, it calls for tremendous skill in fine balancing. At the same time, we cannot forget that at present China is our enemy and a great threat. It does not show any inkling of changing its inimical attitude towards us.

[SSridhar]

Reading from your POV, the Japanese could have been better handled diplomatically. Did the MEA goof up purposely? Or are we still reading too much in the news?

India had limited opportunities., getting the BRICS buttoned down and in the bonus get access to APEC. And to be fair, India has done more than necessary sucking up to Japanese in the run up to the nuclear treaty. It is that when NKoreans are shooting rockets that Japanese woke up and started looking at India?

I do not think that our MEA goofed up purposely. Modi has great admiration for Japan and has personal rapport with Abe that it would have been purposeful. Anyway, a mistake seems to have been committed probably due to miscommunication or taking things for granted or a lack of coordination.

As for when Japan started looking up to India, the North Korean rockets are inconsequential from the India-Japan relationship. Japan has better technology to take care of them. Our new growth in relationship goes a long way back (at least in modern times) to the MV Allondra Rainbow affair in October 1999.

PS: BTW, I do not think that the cancellation of the trilateral India-US-Japan meeting has got anything to do with the US & Japanese angst against BRICS. These meetings are planned a long time ahead and have been going on for a few years now and BRICS is a well known entity too. The 2+2 formula of strategic consultations that exists between India & Japan and the trilateral meetings are rare instances of governments engaging in such wide discussions.

[Karan Dixit]

Any nation in the BRICS should have top priority for India. So even China with whom India has tense relations with should have higher priority over any non BRICS nations such as Japan. For example, Japan will always give higher priority to the US over India. This is the way it is. Even in BRICS India will have to assign different priority level to different members; I would say from Indian interest, the priority should be: Russia, Brazil, South Africa and China in that order.

I do not understand the context in which you seem to suggest that BRICS must have priority over Japan. There was no such issue. The issue is not that Modi must have gone to Tokyo instead of to Brasilia, if that is what I understand that you imply.

The issue was that Modi had sufficient time between June 19 and July 9 to have made an official visit to Tokyo especially as the MEA had announced such a visit sometime in June and it was being looked forward to in Tokyo too. Abe made a great gesture by coming to New Delhi on Jan 26 even skipping the first day of the Diet session, something that apparently is a first for a Japanese PM to do not attending the first day's session. And that too, after a hectic programme at Davos and long flights from Europe and then to & fro India and hardly for two days in Delhi. Abe's visit came after a rare visit by the Japanese Emperor and his wife to India just a month earlier. So, the momentum was building up. Besides, there is absolutely no difference between the BJP & INC in the approach to Japan as Modi himself has demonstrated earlier. It was therefore just a continuation of the existing policy without any reset in policy that would have needed time for a re-think. Symbolism matters in diplomacy a lot. Now, the slew of meetings with China (Weng Yi's Delhi visit, Ansari/Nirmala Seetharaman's China visit, meeting Xi Jinping now) stands in stark contrast to the avoidable bitterness with Japan. Not that for every China meeting, there must be a Japanese meeting, but there was a promise of a visit to Tokyo that was not handled in an effective way even if there is a valid reason why it could not take place. The Japanese Foreign Office is upset that it came to know of the cancellation only through the media.

I am not suggesting India purposely downplay its relations with Japan for it will be extremely unwise. What I am saying is that India's current priority should be BRICS. Advancement of BRICS is vital for Indian national interest. Relationship with Japan is also very important for India. I am in complete agreement with you that we need to be very tactful in dealing with nations. India should not do or say anything which is not necessary from Indian perspective.

[svinayak]

Any nation in the BRICS should have top priority for India. So even China with whom India has tense relations with should have higher priority over any non BRICS nations such as Japan. For example, Japan will always give higher priority to the US over India. This is the way it is. Even in BRICS India will have to assign different priority level to different members; I would say from Indian interest, the priority should be: Russia, Brazil, South Africa and China in that order.

Not necessarily true. Japan under Abe is moving towards an US-independent policy, and the country that is most unhappy about this is China.

Situation in Asia is evolving rapidly, and the way forward is not clear. China is wooing India to strengthen itself against the US. Its decision to invite India into APEC is more than just quid-pro-quo for India agreeing to station BRICS Bank HQ in Shaghai, China is also calculating that India in APEC will be counter-weight to US. They are probably thinking that benefits of getting India in now will be higher than the costs of keeping India out.

India needs full engagement inside APEC as a trading partner and it has to be a reality. PRC has to feel comfortable with India as its partner in all multilateral bodies.

The trick is to convince China that Both PRC/India will be counter weight to US global domination. Chinese leaders should feel that it is not just PRC alone but India-China which will be formidable in the world.

[SSridhar]

India needs full engagement inside APEC as a trading partner and it has to be a reality. PRC has to feel comfortable with India as its partner in all multilateral bodies.

The trick is to convince China that Both PRC/India will be counter weight to US global domination. Chinese leaders should feel that it is not just PRC alone but India-China which will be formidable in the world.

China will keep dangling the APEC carrot for a long time without actually making it happen. It would like to see some favourable behaviour from India before it allows India in. In the meanwhile, situations may develop that demand India to take some stance one way or another. Even as India & China were hyping up their meeting in Brazil, the PLA was intruding into Ladakh in Chumar & Demchok sectors. This was the same behaviour we had seen just ahead of Li Keqiang's India visit too. The Chinese idea is to keep pressure simultaneously while promising better things in future. That future never comes. For nealy a decade, we have been pressing for removal of non-tariff barriers on pharma products and industries but China has not relented in spite of the latest assurances in May last year by the Chinese PM.

IMHO, it will be futile to expect that China will enable anything for us.

On the question of convincing PRC of India & PRC jointly taking on the US, there are at least two problems. One is that India will never make a proposition like that, ganging up against even Pakistan leave alone the US. Next, PRC is disdainful of Indian might, politically, economically and militarily. They are supremely confident of taking on the US single-handedly. They want to replace the US hegemony with their own and in their opinion and assessment India has nothing substantial to offer (except in CO2 emissions ityaadi). OTOH, it is we who are looking for partners to fight 'our' battles. We want the US to fight our battle with Pakistan, for example.

[ramana]

SS & SV, The next wars will be trade wars.

So India should offer the US and PRC each a choice: Do they want India to be with one of them or not?

Its either US+India or PRC+India in trade.

Right now its US+PRC in trade

This being friends with everyone is not helpful in wars.
Not realising its war is a big mistake for it will lead to driveby shooting.

[ramana]

When domestic politicking impacts foreing policy. Need to have the Chairman of the RS aligned with national interests and not stick to bogus rule book.

Delhi caught in Gaza Fix

National press needs to have NATIONAL perespective and not be fan boys of political parties.

Delhi caught in a Gaza fix
- Sushma wants debate ‘de-listed’
RADHIKA RAMASESHAN

Sushma Swaraj
New Delhi, July 16: External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj has written to Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari requesting that a short discussion on the Gaza attacks by Israel be “de-listed” from the House’s agenda.

The proposal for the discussion, which was scheduled for Wednesday but did not take place, and the “de-list” request have brought to the fore several pulls and pressures under which the Narendra Modi government is working.

One, Sushma’s request has reflected the Modi government’s reluctance to be seen as taking sides against Israel in West Asia.

Two, suspicions have been voiced whether someone played “mischief” and got the topic included for a short-duration discussion that does not entail voting but can embarrass the government. West Asia has always been a sensitive subject in the country and many parties strive to echo perceived local sentiments in favour of Palestine.

Three, whether too much is being made about conspiracy theories and an inexperienced minister had unwittingly agreed to include the topic on the agenda.

Sushma said such a debate, put off today amid Opposition protests after she claimed being “unaware” of the “revised” agenda, should not be allowed for a number of reasons.

The principal factor, she said, is the “adverse” implications a polarising discourse in Parliament could have on relations with Israel that Prime Minister Modi and the BJP are committed to consolidating and expanding further.

In her missive to Ansari, Sushma is learnt to have cited three specific points against the Gaza debate: the “impact” it could have on the fate of the 39 Indians being held hostage in Iraq, the “frontline” role of the outlawed Hamas in retaliatory assaults against Israel, and the fact that India had diplomatic relations with Israel and Palestine and could not be seen to “take sides”.

A government source said, referring to the topic: “It is a mistake or mischief.”

The source insinuated that the “mischief” might have been instigated by a “politically committed” section of the Rajya Sabha secretariat to “disconcert” the new government.

A secretariat source offered another theory. “These are teething problems being experienced by a party that was in the Opposition for a decade. Maybe, the BJP finds the topic inconvenient, maybe there is a communication gap between its ministers.”

Although the debate was not held, a formal reply to Sushma’s request for erasing the item from the agenda is still being drafted by the Rajya Sabha secretariat, a source said.

It is learnt that the chairman’s office is expected to cite rules which state that once an item is listed, it becomes the “property of the House” and, as a consequence, dropping or amending the matter is possible only with the concurrence of the members.

Although government sources claimed the short-duration discussion crept in “mysteriously” on the agenda sheet, junior parliamentary affairs minister Prakash Javadekar seemed to know about it last evening.

According to the Rajya Sabha records of Tuesday, there was a debate between 5pm and 6pm on how the business for the following day should be organised.

Javadekar, according to the records, said he had allotted 10 hours for a discussion on the railway budget. He added that since the Congress wanted a short-duration discussion on the attacks on Palestinians in Gaza that “can go on for three hours”, the House should get down to the rail budget right away to save time.

Government and Opposition sources said that while a demand for the discussion did not arise at yesterday’s meeting of the Rajya Sabha’s business advisory committee — which decides what matters are to be taken up —members had “informally” sought one. “Some Opposition MPs said Javadekar had informally agreed to one but we are yet to verify their account,” a source said.

Government sources suggested that Modi — away in Brazil — might have communicated his “disapproval” of the discussion to senior ministers, including Sushma. As Gujarat chief minister, Modi was Israel-friendly and had used its expertise to revamp agriculture and irrigation in the arid state.

“In normal times, a free-wheeling discussion would be fine. But when Indians have been held captive and provocative statements are made in the House, it could jeopardise their lives. Also, is it possible to exclude the Hamas’ contribution to the crisis? It is a terrorist outfit,” a source stressed.

Sources said that at the core of the BJP’s reluctance was its “world-view” that global conflicts and internal hostilities in another country should not be allowed to influence India’s foreign policy.

A government source suggested that “the violence is politically exploited by some parties to play on local sentiments.”

Samajwadi Party Rajya Sabha leader Ramgopal Yadav rejected such suggestions. “The issue is a humanitarian one because the victims are largely unarmed women and children. We cannot remain mute and blind to this catastrophe,” Yadav said.

Lots of facts to do a root cause analysis.

- Javedkar allowed the Congress request without realizing the ramifcations on the Indian Foreign Policy with hostages.
- The request was made informally and he agreed thinking it was routine matter.

The Opposition has an agenda to screw the Govt and create trouble.
They also have votebanks to appease.


The net result is Indian foreign policy whcih should be off limits to domestic issues is now hostage to it.

Lets see if Hamid Ansari plays stateman as he is former IFS and understands the ramifications or plays partisan. The choice is his.

[krisna]

Not sure if posted elsewhere-
40 Indians freed from suadi arabia

The Narendra Modi government has secured the release of 40 Indian nationals who were being held in prison in Saudi Arabia for allegedly violating labour laws of that country, a BJP leader said here today.

crime of the Indians-

They were in jail for one year following their arrest for holding protests upon the death of one of their colleagues.

The efforts of foreign minister Sushma Swaraj have helped secure the release of these 40 labourers after she took up the matter with the Saudi government," Hussain told PTI.

Hussain said the labourers had been in prison in Saudi Arabia since July 16 of last year.

"This July 2, relatives of some of the labourers met Swaraj, who immediately asked the Indian ambassador to secure their release. They (labourers) were released on July 6 after the construction company took back its case.

"But their release from jail could not be secured as the Saudi prince could not sign the release order, which has since been secured upon a request by the foreign minister," he said.

what was upa doing since july 16 2013. or were the officials doing the backgroundwork and it became easy for NDA to get their release.

[SSridhar]

India to host next IBSA summit - The Hindu

India will host the 7th IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) summit in 2015. The announcement was made following a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Jacob Zuma in Brasília on Wednesday.

The two leaders met at the sidelines of the interaction between the BRICS leadership and leaders from Latin American countries.

This will be the third time New Delhi will be hosting the IBSA summit since it started in 2006. While the inaugural edition of the summit was held in Brazil, India played host to the third edition in 2008 and the sixth in 2013. IBSA is a trilateral initiative between India, Brazil and South Africa “to promote, inter-alia, South-South cooperation and exchange.” The platform was announced, following a meeting of Foreign Ministers of the three countries in Brasilia in 2003, through the adoption of the Brasilia Declaration.

The IBSA summit involves consultations at the heads of state-level while meetings between Ministers and officials are held at the Trilateral Joint Commission and Focal Point levels respectively.

IBSA countries especially India must take the lead in running the NDB because both China & Russia have poor banking systems and have lax financial regulations.

[Karan Dixit]

SS & SV, The next wars will be trade wars.

So India should offer the US and PRC each a choice: Do they want India to be with one of them or not?

Its either US+India or PRC+India in trade.

Right now its US+PRC in trade

This being friends with everyone is not helpful in wars.
Not realising its war is a big mistake for it will lead to driveby shooting.

Is Japan willing to flight alongside India if a war were to breakout between India and China? If the answer is yes then the next question is: Is India willing to fight alongside Japan if a war were to breakout between Japan and China? If the answer is yes then there is a possibility of military alliance. I am in a staunch favor of military alliance between India and Japan but the first roadblock is Japan does not have an independent foreign policy.

[SSridhar]

Is Japan willing to flight alongside India if a war were to breakout between India and China? If the answer is yes then the next question is: Is India willing to fight alongside Japan if a war were to breakout between Japan and China? If the answer is yes then there is a possibility of military alliance. I am in a staunch favor of military alliance between India and Japan but the first roadblock is Japan does not have an independent foreign policy.

Karan, yes, Japan does not have a completely independent foreign policy but that is something left-over from recent history and understandable. But, times are changing. The pacifist constitution is being re-interpreted in Japan. The self-defence forces are being authorized to attack (within certain conditions) and go to war as part of 'collective self-defence'. This has pushed the envelope quite wide though the scenarios that Abe has described so far involved only attacks on US assets that might necessitate Japan going to its defence. But, I believe that once this string is loosened, it would slowly but surely move towards including others as well, but a lot more needs to be done to reach that stage.

The East Asian countries do realize that a diminishing US pitted against a surging China would not be able to take it on effectively without support from significant regional players and India looms very large on their radar. Australia might be able to provide land for a huge American base but ultimately it is only India that can bottle up China and provide a meaningful counter challenge to China from among the regional countries. This realization is there among all the countries (recall the bold US suggestion of a five-nation axis consisting of US, Japan, South Korea (RoK), Australia and India sometime in c. 2005). It was Abe who first coined Indo-Pacific which has been subsequently picked by the GotUS, PotUS and the State Deptt.

India was the only country mentioned (apart from the usual references to the US) in The National Defence Programme Guidelines of Japan released in 2011. During Japanese PM Yoshihiko Noda’s visit to India in December 2011, Japan also lifted embargo on arms sales to India. The Search&Rescue sea-plane ShinMaywa deal, though it has not yet happened, is very much about to happen. Indian Navy is the only other one (apart from the US) with which the Japanese MSDF has an interoperability agreement. Of course, the two Coast Guards have been conducting the annual 'Sahyog Kaijin' exercises since c. 2006. Japan has now become part of the Indo-US bilateral Malabar exercise. In fact, it was India which was hesitating to include Japan in the Malabar exercises fearing Chinese repercussions. In order to have a more intensive level of interaction between the Indian and Japanese services, Japan decided to have three service attaches at its New Delhi embassy in c. 2013. On February, 11, 2013, the Indian Army Chief visited Japan to enhance, “"The strategic-military partnership with Japan to a new level.” By July 2013, all three Japanese service chiefs had visited India in that year, an unheard of development. During the January 2014 visit to New Delhi of the Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera, it was agreed to expand ties between the air forces of the two nations.

This is what Man Mohan Singh said during his May 2013 visit to Tokyo, "India’s relations with Japan are important not only for our economic development, but also because we see Japan as a natural and indispensable partner in our quest for stability and peace in the vast region in Asia that is washed by the Pacific and Indian Oceans. India and Japan had increasingly convergent world views and growing stakes in each other’s prosperity and shared interests in maritime security as both faced similar challenges to energy security. Defence and security dialogue, military exercises and defence technology collaboration between the two countries should grow and both should consult and coordinate more closely on global and regional forums.”

Obviously, there is an unprecedented convergence in security matters between the two nations and this would only grow. Whether it would reach a stage where India & Japan sign a "Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement", only time will tell.

[g.sarkar]

Sridharji,
That is well and good. But historically, India's problems are created by the US. To undermine the USSR, trade and development of China was encouraged. Without US (and other US allies such as Japan) help China would have remained a third world country, still a long way to go before it could develop its economy and military and ultimately successfully threaten Asian countries including India. India's other problem Pakistan was financed to undermine India. Now India being encouraged to diminish China's influence. This is only to serve US interests. While it might be good to work with Japan alone, but Japan is still not her own master. Any special engagement with Japan will mean bringing in USA (and also UK and Australia) through the back door. Any alliance with US against China could be dangerous for India. Unless India wishes to be a pawn for the US interests, we have to wait till US influence is reduced and Japan is more independent.
Gautam

[SSridhar]

Any special engagement with Japan will mean bringing in USA (and also UK and Australia) through the back door. Any alliance with US against China could be dangerous for India. Unless India wishes to be a pawn for the US interests, we have to wait till US influence is reduced and Japan is more independent.

Gautam ji, you have raised the right points. Let me state what I feel. The Indian foreign policy situation has always been difficult, driven as we are by too much morality (which does not work in the practice of statecraft), a wait for a zero-risk situation (which is never going to happen), and over-analysis of every situation leading to inaction.

We have much more at stake with China than Japan has with it in terms of actual disputes. The biggest territorial dispute with China by any country in the region is ours (next only to Russia which has now been settled, more or less). IMO, China's aggressive posture with Japan is not irredentism; it is to show them a few things: that their reliance on the US is useless, that they are the new master and that they have not forgotten the Japanese atrocities on the Chinese since the 1930s. OTOH, Tibet is a core issue for China and India therefore figures very prominently on the Chinese radar. China has not shown absolutely any inclination to either settle the border problem with us, or change its extreme inimical attitude towards us by reducing its support for Pakistan or trespassing into our spheres of influence all around us with the sole intent of bottling us up. We thought increasing trade and concessions to China would 'soften' their hardline. No, it hasn't over the last decade. We now want to do even more of the same and the result is not going to be anything different. It is like our same attitude towards Pakistan over the last fifty-odd years. Appeasement does not work in statecraft and we have not learnt it.

A neo Cold war has set in already. This is very different from the previous one in which it was 'either you are with us or against us'. It is impossible, IMHO, to define strict compartments like that in the emerging scenario. There will be situations where friends become foes and vice versa. Let us consider the apparently solidifying China-Russia relationship, a throwback to the 1950s. In spite of proximity on several fronts, there is a lot of rivalry too between them two. For example, China warned Russia in April, 2012 not to drill for oil in South China Sea in collaboration with Vietnam, just as it did to us. Russian PM Medvedev while on a visit to Hanoi a few months later shrugged it off and simply said that Russia and Vietnam will drill for oil&gas and it has been going on ever since. Russia is the biggest supplier of defence equipment to Vietnam. In October, 2010, the Russian Naval Chief warned of China’s ambitions in the Arctic Region under UNCLOS. Russia is closely controlling the access to the Northern Sea Route which China wants to use to overcome its Malacca dilemma. The uneasy relationship between China and Russia lead to some problems also, like in the access to the Arctic region. China wanted to join the eight-member Arctic Council as a permanent observer member, a move that the dominant Russia was uncomfortable with. It was due to the pressure from Nordic countries (on whom China worked with blandishments) that Russia reluctantly agreed to induct China as an observer member in May 2013. Xi Jinping's first official visit to any country was to Moscow in March 2013. His Russia trip was preceded by protests by the Chinese against Russians for occupying large Chinese territory. In days leading up to Mr. Xi’s departure to Russia, hundreds of comments online “demanding the return of territories” inundated the Russian Embassy in Beijing’s official microblog on Sina Weibo. Commentators said Russia was “the country that occupies the largest territory of China.” A few months later Russia & China conducted their largest naval exercise in the Sea of Japan. However, within hours after the joint naval exercises ended, Russia conducted a surprise land warfare exercise at the Chinese border involving 160,000 troops, 1,000 tanks, 130 aircraft. The land warfare exercise along the Chinese border was also a symptom of the Russian fears of China as China still considers vast territories in the Russian Far East as unfairly annexed from it in the 19th century.

India and China have themselves cooperated in some international fora. As Xinjiang explodes further, who knows, India and China may even exchange a fair amount of intelligence on Pakistan.

There are many examples among various countries that suggest that the neo Cold War has parameters that are very different from the black or white situation that existed up to the 90s.

[svinayak]

There are many examples among various countries that suggest that the neo Cold War has parameters that are very different from the black or white situation that existed up to the 90s.

Sridhar, Good post.
The world has shrunk and India has opportunities during this change
India can create opportunities for long term

[RajeshA]

There are many examples among various countries that suggest that the neo Cold War has parameters that are very different from the black or white situation that existed up to the 90s.

SSridhar garu,

If I may say so, I don't think there is any neo cold-war. It is more like a multipolar tug of war.

Every power would try to keep the other off-balance, trying to avert the domination of the other in its neighborhood, trying to buy off a few power-brokers in the other's power setup, trying to expand intelligence network in other's domain, trying to make the other economically dependent on it, etc. And all the while all would be exchanging smiles and giving hugs.

India cannot sit out this game! We can of course use any rhetoric whatsoever that is pleasing to the ears of the others, but the game still needs to be played, and we should start playing the game for winning.

Rabid-dog Islamism in Pakistan is not the problem for us. Our main problem is that we have shied away from showing that dog who its master is and do it without feeding it, but by letting it feed off someone's else meat!

Just a little rant!

[KrishnaK]

The trick is to convince China that Both PRC/India will be counter weight to US global domination. Chinese leaders should feel that it is not just PRC alone but India-China which will be formidable in the world.

[SSridhar]

If I may say so, I don't think there is any neo cold-war. It is more like a multipolar tug of war.

Every power would try to keep the other off-balance, trying to avert the domination of the other in its neighborhood, trying to buy off a few power-brokers in the other's power setup, trying to expand intelligence network in other's domain, trying to make the other economically dependent on it, etc. And all the while all would be exchanging smiles and giving hugs.

Rajesh ji, that is exactly what I am saying. However, my allusion to neo-Cold War is to the most prominent of those tug-of-wars being played out currently, namely between China-Russia on the one hand and US, Europeans and its far-eastern allies on the other hand, as we are seeing it in South & East China Seas, or the Levant or Ukraine. Countries like India would want it to be multi-polarity though they have limited means at present to expand the envelope. China, on the other hand, would naturally prevent it from happening and once again they know that the only successful challenger for it would be India. Once again, it has enough reason to strangulate us though we keep re-assuring them that "the world has enough space for both of us to peacefully rise".

India cannot sit out this game! We can of course use any rhetoric whatsoever that is pleasing to the ears of the others, but the game still needs to be played, and we should start playing the game for winning.

True, we have no option but to play the game in the same fashion. Our long-term weakness of morality be damned. We can no longer remain a mute spectator to the happenings. We have to shape them for our benefit. One only hopes that we have such leaders in place

[RajeshA]

SSridhar garu,

I would say the Russia-China axis is not really a relationship of friendship. China uses Russia for technological bolstering of its military and for resources, and more prominently to blackmail US by tilting towards Russia.

Russia uses China to show its coalition still as an equal to that of NATO, even though its an illusion, but it suits Chinese to be used that way.

China retains its maximum freedom on the international stage. All other powers - USA and Russia, are encumbered by their assurances to other allies, responsibilities in far off lands, official morality, great power reputations, dwindling financial muscle, etc. China can dance at all weddings.

USA cannot switch off its hostility towards Russia because Russia represents a rival within the House of the Whites, and until Russia is really neutralized, USA cannot feel it is the undisputed leader of the Western world.

This insecurity of USA and its rivalry with Russia keeps the value of China for both Russia and USA high.

It is under these circumstances that India needs to find a place for itself in the world order.

[RoyG]

By inducting Doval into PMO, Modi has already revealed what direction India will go.

He is more concerned with internal security matters and India's periphery.

Our Pangolin strategy of taking the policy and terror hits from abroad will be upgraded to a porcupine strategy.

Unification of the neighborhood under an economic and security umbrella under the leadership of New Delhi.

Russia, EU, China, US are headed for a collision course and it's best to play all sides to ensure that the entire neighborhood is insulated and industrializes and becomes more integrated.

In order to expand our influence abroad Doval has stated the need to spread our dharmic traditions, economic weight, and covert action.

This is the best way we can pressure China on Tibet and form a security ring around them.

[shravanp]

Just read on twitter that India has voted against Israel in a motion moved by Pakistan?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtPexoSIQAEWrHS.jpg

[member_28705]

Doctrine of non-reciprocity: Doing favours to the neighbours without expecting much in return in the short-term. This could be so that
--> Long-term goals can be achieved
--> Win-win situations can be arrived at.
--> Idealistic values - like morality, large heartedness etc.

Examples are giving concessions to Bhutan like aid, LPG, Kerosene subsidies; allowing Nepalis to come work here across an open border; MFN to TSP etc. etc.

Of course, there can be no 'pure non-reciprocity' only qualified non-reciprocity; wherein we don't expect anything beyond these neighbours keeping our favours in mind and heart, being considerate and not acting selfishly in ways that could hurt India etc.

I am reading this book by Muchkund Dubey - India's Foreign Policy: Coping with the changing world. I haven't been able to finish it yet. But this author repeatedly emphasizes on the principle of 'non-reciprocity' - wherein he wants the readers to see how non-reciprocity has ALWAYS been a guiding principle of our post-independence foreign policy [i.e. even before IK Gujral].

This author has a lot of respect for late Mr. Gujral and his doctrine too [although I have read from some places that he was responsible for scrapping RAW in Pakistan and if that's true then I am not sure what to think of that - please correct me if I am wrong].

However I do see some merits in pursuing policy of partial non-reciprocity [but coupled with strong action as and when needed like what we did with Bhutan when Jigme Thinley wanted to trade Chumbi with China**].

I want to ask a couple of questions to you gurus at BRF.

• Further, what are our gains and failures in pursuit of this policy?
  Do you think the Modi Govt. will pursue this doctrine - if so to what ends?

**China wanted to trade 500 sqkm of land to Bhutan in exchange for 250 sqkm Chumbi Valley. Chumbi Valley is between Sikkim and Bhutan [this right by the Chicken Neck; refer to this img: http://i.imgur.com/8zk2nI9.jpg].
PM Jigmey Thinley agreed to this deal in 2012 [in Rio+20 summit].
India cut off aid, subsidies to hurt Bhutanese economy.
People protested, PM Thogbay replaced Thinley and promised to be a friend - so we gave $$ and subsidies.

[ramana]

For starters please post a summary of the doctrine so it can be discussed. Otherwise it will be shooting in the dark.
Thanks,

ramana

[member_28705]

For starters please post a summary of the doctrine so it can be discussed. Otherwise it will be shooting in the dark.
Thanks,

ramana

Done

I've updated my original post http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1701435

[Virupaksha]

From my point of view, The doctrine of non-reciprocity is inherently nonsense. In normal terms, without using some funda, all it means is that India is a sugar daddy. Even they want something in return. The doctrine inherently assumes reciprocity over a period of time. It says, I am doing you a favor NOW. In the future, I expect the same from you. One can call it goodwill, brand image or whatever but essentially it expects that the party receiving favors will pay up for that somewhere down the line.

I will give a 500Rs gift to a partner only if I expect to give me a 50000 deal. So giving 500Rs can be seen as non-reciprocal, but it essentially is not. What happens if that partner recieves ten gifts but doesnt give the deal? How do you hint while giving that small gift that it is in expectation of that deal AND if he doesnt give deal, he should expect blow back.

That principle assumes that in exchange for India being "non-reciprocal" for building dams etc, no other big power will given a foothold. The moment if BD gives a foothold to china, does one really expect India to continue to be a sugar daddy.

Sugar daddies only pay for their own mistresses. Once the mistress becomes communal or some body elses, sugar daddies vanish.

For whom will you do a favor? When one has a relation which goes beyond give and take. The issue with such favors is always this. It becomes an unequal relationship as how will the favor giver holds the receiver to the inherent deal being made. The giver can only hold onto the principle as long as there is something overriding on the table.

[member_28705]

From my point of view, The doctrine of non-reciprocity is inherently nonsense. In normal terms, without using some funda, all it means is that India is a sugar daddy. Even they want something in return. The doctrine inherently assumes reciprocity over a period of time. It says, I am doing you a favor NOW. In the future, I expect the same from you. One can call it goodwill, brand image or whatever but essentially it expects that the party receiving favors will pay up for that somewhere down the line.

I will give a 500Rs gift to a partner only if I expect to give me a 50000 deal. So giving 500Rs can be seen as non-reciprocal, but it essentially is not. What happens if that partner recieves ten gifts but doesnt give the deal? How do you hint while giving that small gift that it is in expectation of that deal AND if he doesnt give deal, he should expect blow back.

That principle assumes that in exchange for India being "non-reciprocal" for building dams etc, no other big power will given a foothold. The moment if BD gives a foothold to china, does one really expect India to continue to be a sugar daddy.

Sugar daddies only pay for their own mistresses. Once the mistress becomes communal or some body elses, sugar daddies vanish.

For whom will you do a favor? When one has a relation which goes beyond give and take. The issue with such favors is always this. It becomes an unequal relationship as how will the favor giver holds the receiver to the inherent deal being made. The giver can only hold onto the principle as long as there is something overriding on the table.

So, in your opinion, the 1 billion credit line that Modi recently promised Nepal to spend on projects of 'their choice' - is this an ill-adviced move?

[Paul]

Muchkund Dubey is one of the original WKKs. He is also a strong votary of unilateral nuclear disarmament. Gujral doctrine - pakistan makes eminent sense to me.

[Virupaksha]

So, in your opinion, the 1 billion credit line that Modi recently promised Nepal to spend on projects of 'their choice' - is this an ill-adviced move?

No, I didnt say that being a sugar daddy is wrong.

I said that the doctrine of non-reciprocity is only non-reciprocal in a short span of time and tends to be reciprocal over time.

and it is a credit line for god's sake. I am okay with India extending 10 billion credit line to even usa

[ramana]

KrisP. Immediately after Independence, there were ~600 Princely states that were under Subsidiary Alliance with the British. The British said the treaties had lapsed and the states were free to choose. This was a way to create a million mutinies in India. Sardar Patel and VP Menon forcefully negotiated treaties of accession and created modern India. Unfortunately Patel died soon after. The problem was the idea of geographical extent of modern India was not clearly stated to be limited to sub-continental India. So there is uncertainity. Nehru in his wisdom let Portuguese territories to fester till 1962. The French handed over Pondicherry, Yanam, Daman and Diu early on. IOW the territory expansion kept going. Sikkim was added in mid 70s.

The Anglo-Saxon West and latter China stoked the neighboring states fear of assimilation by big bad India and every minor issue was escalated. It did not help that giant eogs were running the MEA and till Swaran Singh in 1960s it was a Nehru fiefdom. Every MEA two-bit officer or do taka or do kaudi afsar thoguht he was pelnipotentiary of GOI and misbehaved in the neighborhood while acting as meek vassal in Duplicity. A typical coawrdly bully attitude festered and nurtured by Nehru and his gang.

in this midst the non-reciprocity doctrine (NRD) was created to assuage and assure the neighbors that India is not a threat to them and they don't have to run to far away sponsors to try a Lilliputian way of tying down Gulliver India.


it worked in some places but failed in others.

WWKitis is part of the NRD.

Ainslee Embree the US scholar commented in late 90s that this NRD was really a doctrine of pre-eminence where a major power grants privileges to minor powers with out reciprocity.


So far in international relations the governing principle is strict reciprocity which also implies Suriname has same weight as US. And we know its not! The same weight is in UN type of organizations but we have seen such votes get distorted with threats and inducements.

[member_28705]

KrisP. Immediately after Independence, there were ~600 Princely states that were under Subsidiary Alliance with the British. The British said the treaties had lapsed and the states were free to choose. This was a way to create a million mutinies in India. Sardar Patel and VP Menon forcefully negotiated treaties of accession and created modern India. Unfortunately Patel died soon after. The problem was the idea of geographical extent of modern India was not clearly stated to be limited to sub-continental India. So there is uncertainity. Nehru in his wisdom let Portuguese territories to fester till 1962. The French handed over Pondicherry, Yanam, Daman and Diu early on. IOW the territory expansion kept going. Sikkim was added in mid 70s.

The Anglo-Saxon West and latter China stoked the neighboring states fear of assimilation by big bad India and every minor issue was escalated. It did not help that giant eogs were running the MEA and till Swaran Singh in 1960s it was a Nehru fiefdom. Every MEA two-bit officer or do taka or do kaudi afsar thoguht he was pelnipotentiary of GOI and misbehaved in the neighborhood while acting as meek vassal in Duplicity. A typical coawrdly bully attitude festered and nurtured by Nehru and his gang.

in this midst the non-reciprocity doctrine (NRD) was created to assuage and assure the neighbors that India is not a threat to them and they don't have to run to far away sponsors to try a Lilliputian way of tying down Gulliver India.

Class stuff! Thank you for this wonderful lesson. I didn't quite correlate the two events - that is India absorbing erstwhile princely states and Sikkhim and neighbours developing anxiety, even though I knew of both these things.

[Rony]

'Modi'-fying India's foreign policy from Undie Tv

[ramana]

KrisP, Thanks. Everyone looks at things from their experience.

Soon after winning against Imperial Japan, US started seeing India thru that lens and thought that the states integration was the old japanese co-propserity sphere which integrated Japanese conquered states with Imperial Japan. This was because they had bought into the British idea that the ~600 Princely states were different from British India. Same time Indian freedom struggle leaders also looked at things from their own experience of British 'divide and rule' aftermath and went about creating India that is Bharat. They did not clearly state the extent of the new India. This allowed space to for others to stoke fears of the smaller neighbors. Add to that we had garroulous Indian scholars and diplomutts waxing eloquent of historical expanse in South East Asia whch was misinterpeted as being the near abroad of India.

All the while in China, Koumintang Chiang Kai Shek was being routed by Communist Mao and US stopped aid to allow Mao to consolidate and they wnet on to occupy Tibet and broke of parts and integrated into mainland China.

IOW, India was being contained in East Asia by US policy and in the West by British policy of creating Pakistan. And JLN garu was saving the world, treating the neighborhood as a bully.

Mao was US's ISIS in East Asia. And they had fake debates of "Who lost China?" just as they now have "Who lost the Muddle East?"

[ramana]

X-Post...

Mani Shanker Aiyar’s personal dislike for Prime Minister Narender Modi results in nonsensical criticism of the correct decision of stopping talks with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Or maybe I erred and the nonsensical criticism was induced by fear that the “Track 2” diplomatic gravy train would stop for Mr. Aiyar.

Mani Shankar Aiyar concludes an Op-Ed titled “Being A Bully” in the Indian Express by saying , “We stand warned that whimsicality and bullying are going to characterise our relations with Pakistan over the next five years; exactly the kind of whimsicality and bullying that led to the Austro-Hungarian Empire attacking Serbia a hundred years ago, leading to the devastation of the two world wars.”.

From here:

Being A Bully

MSA is wrong as usual. What Modi has done is stop Non-Reciprocity Doctrine (NRD) vis a vis TSP.
IOW Modi is implementing selective NRD vs universal NRD which was the earlier practice.

MSA is suffering from congnitive dissonance at this unexpected step.

MSA is just a symbol of the India baiting chatterati mercenaries who are flummoxed.

[Kashi]

MSA's unnecessary and seemingly irrelevant reference to Austro-Hungarian empire triggering WWI may not be a demented ramble. WWI started when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian.

Ominously, is MSA trying to say (or threaten) that the history will be repeated in the subcontinent and he's preemptively blaming Modi if the events repeat themselves.

The man is a snake, albeit with little brains or insights of his own. Is he speaking for his masters and trying to warn Modi of certain "consequences"?

I think NM and Doval must be aware of the treacherous plans.

[JE Menon]

This MSA is a useless fellow, of a type not unique in Congress. He is the kind with principle, but without reason.

No different from the idiot jihadi, with the only difference being he does not have the meat-diet that would enable him to take a sabre and stuff it up his own wazoo - except verbally of course, like did for the whole party with his "chaiwallah" comment, one of the examples of his laxative language that led to their diarrhoeic expulsion by the electorate...