India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

[Cyrano]

---X posting from Ukraine thread---
Putin has demonstrated that when you attack the west, its interests, or even a half way ally, you are attacking its system. This "system" starts from abstract judo-chrisitan morality and extends down in a complex interlocking web of cross-national dependencies, geographical spread, an established "rules based order", treaties and pacts, diplomacy, trade and economic ties, supply chains, access regulations to markets, currency management, banks and lending institutions, academica, entertainment, media houses, and of course collective military capability.

Russia unfortunately remained at the fringes of this "system" partly due to its own doing. The USSR was a competing system though far less efficient, and collapsed under its own weight, with generous nudging from the West's system. USSR could flourish when the West was still recovering from post WW-2 destruction and fatigue, and was losing its colonies one by one. Then too, it built a closed, defensive system feeding on itself, with no way to let off its internal stresses and strains, where as the West rebuilt (somewhat organically) an expansive and more cunningly exploitative system that feeds on or co-opts others. Lets call it "system 2.0"

While Putin may wax nostalgic about regaining Russia's lost glory, history bears out that his Russia never had a "system" that expanded outwards and created its own complex web. Putin simply has far less levers to play with. Arms sales, Oil and gas sales, and nuclear weapons - thats pretty much it. Despite its immense spread, Russia enjoys little geographic dividends, and at some point its vast territory will become a liability.

China has understood this better and earlier than India and moved very quickly to integrate tightly with the Western system to feed it and feed on it (a 1.4B population will have a monstrous appetite), and is now trying to supplant it with its own system - be it corrupting West's political class, B&RI, hence the friction points with the west.

India is a peculiar case. Having suffered in the hands of pre-WW2 "System 1.0" we have developed a deep mistrust of "systems" themselves, and therefore took the "Non-Aligned" path. We could afford it since we enjoy considerable geographic dividends (distance from warring blocs, natural barriers to protect us, climate, perennial rivers, bio diversity, monsoons and a large population) but over time, "System 2.0" became too powerful and pervasive to ignore or wish away. USSR anyway fizzled out, Chinese upcoming "eat dog eat" is a suicide and the ineluctable conclusion is rapprochement with "System 2.0" which has been going on slowly, in bits and pieces since 30+ years, but strong military dependencies remain with the vestiges of USSR, today's Russia, and it can feel the threat of Chinese WIP system already at its borders. And India is no way conceptually, mentally or materially ready to imagine, contemplate or create its own "System". Anyways, there is simply no opportunity in this fast paced tech driven world to attempt any such ambitions.

Now if you superimpose the current situation in this tableau :
- Putin has tried brinkmanship and invasion but is highly unlikely to succeed
- Even if he achieves some military success, victory will be very ephemeral and superficial, he cant escape the vice grip of the boa constrictor that is "System 2.0"
- The current crisis has rejuvenated "System 2.0" which has woken up and discovering the pleasant sensation of flexing its muscles.
- The internal dynamics of "system 2.0" US-UK-EU-RoW differences do not make it substantially weak and it remains supreme in relative power parity.
- Whatever multi-polarity we keep talking about has to happen within "System 2.0" - any poles outside aren't strong enough to compete and won't be allowed to get stronger.
- The debacles of US, China and now Russia are ample demonstrations that military might alone doesnt help achieve one's strategic objectives, but can be a catalyst and power multiplier when wielded by sane, competent hands.

India's recent UN SC abstention, though justifiably cast in self interest, might be the last such vote it can afford to cast and get away with. So why did India play such an important joker card now? Because imminent as its complete integration into system 2.0 is, (which means integration into most if not all aspects I listed at the top) it wants to set come conditions, alter the functioning of the system 2.0 web to its unique needs (our 1.3 B people need to be fed and can feed others too) to some extent and actually signal that subject to a fair and accommodating welcome, India is willing to merge with it. This crisis was a good opportunity to do so and India has made its move. Resisting won't serve its interests much longer. Interestingly China has too, and openly sided with Russia - a proposition with diminishing returns and an admission that "Chinese System" is still far from standing on its own. Good for us.

Seen this way India's stance is fair, courageous and very reality driven. We have encashed the joker with good timing, its now time to play "System 2.0" earnestly, positively, competently, and when needed ruthlessly for the next few decades.

Added here:
India does have the means (respectable military strength, population - skills, markets, food security, good will; resources, diaspora and existing influence) to to build upon and create its own pole in a multipolar "System 2.0" to defend its interests and benefit from it. Our objective must be to use it do disengage ourselves totally from Russia over time and help everyone to disengage from China at the earliest. If one looks at RCEP, our Middle East, look & act east, neighbourhood policy, Quad, climate change, solar alliance, the help we extend to small IOR nations, military procurement diversification, make in India, they all point in this direction. We can do better in many areas, especially narrative management but we have some work to do to master doing things from within the system and using it, instead of trying to bend the system by fighting it from the outside.

[KLNMurthy]

…

The western system is based on a basic premise that countries should not attack other sovereign nations. Even China faithfully parrots this, and is having a hard time arguing both ways. This is the values over interest situations that differ from normal interests situation. It is the red line - autocratic regimes are fine, standard national interest mechanisms work for dealing with them, but if they forcefully expand into a sovereign nation that really wants to remain democratic, then it becomes a values over interests situation. Such nations will fight, because its citizens in many cases have been under autocratic regimes and no longer wish to be so. Look at the size and scale of the citizens demonstrations supporting Ukraine across EU - that is values over interests. It is not all info war, although there is enough of that.

Thank you for a considered and thoughtful response. I am not quoting all of it to avoid post bloat.

I agree that physically invading a country crosses a line and changes the debate.

And sometimes, but not always, it breaks a universal principle. Emphasis on the “universal.”

Also agree that, for Western Europe + US (WEUS), one of them invading another of their own, or an outsider invading a WEUS country, are red lines. Breaking a principle you might say. So this red line is the principle we are talking about here: something that requires action, no excuses, no soothing words, no mumbling. No worrying about costs or interests being damaged.

Ukraine is “almost” one of their own. Russia is not.

But the debate here is about what India should do & why. You are recommending speaking out against Russia (the what) and because of the above principle (the why). The what would follow if we are in agreement about the why.

I don’t agree that this principle applies to India, from the viewpoint of WEUS. The principle applies only to WEUS. It is not universal. India is not one of their own. WEUS has made it amply clear, there is no room for doubt. India is not quite an enemy, and they don’t mind having friendly relations with it, they don’t mind integrating Indians into their societies, provided they are productive and docile. But India per se is not one of their own.

This is not India’s view, India is perfectly happy to accept WEUS as its own, and apply this principle universally and uniformly. The othering of India is 100% the choice of WEUS, and 0% India’s choice.

Perhaps this is the crux of the difference you and I are having: I think, as an Indic you see the WEUS as your own, and perhaps believe that like you, WEUS also sees India the same way. Whereas I think this shared humanity, culture, and principles are one-sided, with India opening everything and WEUS giving nothing, grudgingly opening a little here and there, and demanding eternal unconditional fealty in return.

Therefore there is no automatic obligation on India’s part to honor this principle and jeopardize its interests (which is your recommendation).

[Karan M]

One fine day we may have to invade Pak or China controlled territory in pursuit of our natsec goals. What then? Strength decides geopolitical positioning. Not perceptions of morality or otherwise.

[Y. Kanan]

^^^^ The Chinese doesn't care what our stance is on Ukraine, they will keep the pressure on India directly and indirectly until either we capitulate or we become strong enough to rebuff them.

You misunderstand; I wasn't saying that China cares about our stance on Ukraine, I was saying that in the wars to come, India will have to either pick a side or remain strictly neutral. The Russia-China axis includes North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Belarus, Venezuela, Cuba as core members and will probably also include, to a lesser degree Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and some other small states. There's going to be more conflict for sure.

India could remain neutral and possibly, in exchange for this neutrality, China and Russia pressure Pakistan to behave. China needs Pak to cooperate on Afghanistan and the Uigher situation, while Russia also wants jihadism tamed in south Asia as it threatens their own allies in Central Asia. But conversely, if India sides with the west, the Russia-China axis could turn up the heat on us via Pakistan.

[Cyrano]

In this discussion its relevant to distinguish between "nation", "state" and "nation-state" and where the accepted definitions of these terms come from. Russia is a nation, as is India, France... Ukraine is a state, as is Pakistan and Vatican. Kurds, Tibetans for ex are a nation, without a state. While any aggression of a sovereign state is an aggression without qualifiers, depending on whether the aggressor and aggressed are nations, states or nation-states the reactions of their neighbours and interested parties vary.

Russia might be seeing its aggression as a nation trying to re-join an amputated limb. Ukraine wants to adopt western system and redefine identity to go from being a state to a distinct nation. EU wants to act like a nation when faced with a common threat, but its still learning how to be a state. Is the US a nation-state? The answer may vary depending on whom you ask, even in the US !

The red-line of aggression applies clearly when two nation-states are in conflict. In other cases affinities and interests come into play to influence how others react.
JMT...

[Rudradev]

One fine day we may have to invade Pak or China controlled territory in pursuit of our natsec goals. What then? Strength decides geopolitical positioning. Not perceptions of morality or otherwise.

Great point Karan ji. In this light, it's interesting to think about why UAE joined India and China in abstaining on the UNSC vote to condemn Russia.

UAE, I believe, sees some value in reserving the right of sovereign nations to intervene militarily in other nations that may technically be 'sovereign', but in reality, are failed states serving as the staging ground for hostile proxy forces.

Hence UAE can see itself in Russia's place in a Ukraine-type situation, and does not want to set a precedent whereby a fig-leaf of sovereign nationhood can be used to condemn the invasion of a territory that's actually just a cat's paw for one's adversaries.

In UAE's case, its partners are KSA, Egypt, and (to some extent, after the Abraham Accords were signed) Israel. Its adversaries... the "NATO" to its "Russia"... are Qatar, Turkey, and Iran. And it is Yemen and Libya... most emphatically Yemen... that are analogous to Ukraine.

Just as Putin sees Ukraine as being taken over by a pro-NATO cabal that is prosecuting a civil war against pro-Russian populations in the country, UAE/KSA see Yemen as essentially having become a colony of Qatar and its pro-Muslim-Brotherhood, anti-UAE/KSA regime. For many years, the territory of Yemen has been used as a staging ground for attacks against UAE and KSA by Iran's proxy Houthi militia... ostensibly a "non-state" force but with lots of state support behind it.

While the kinetic war has been fought by the Iran-sponsored Houthis against the Saudi and Emirati armed forces, the diplomatic cover for the Houthis has been provided by Qatar and to a lesser extent Turkey, who make almost exactly the same kinds of arguments that NATO and the US are making with respect to UN and Russia. Their lobbyists in Western capitals argue that Yemen (though a failed state) is a sovereign territory, and therefore any invasion of it is illegal; and moreover, the war prosecuted by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi has been a violation of "human rights" marred by many atrocities, etc. because of which UAE/KSA should be sanctioned. All of this may be true, mind you, but nonetheless, it closely mirrors the Russia/Ukraine/NATO situation in international relations terms.

India could very easily find itself in yet another analogous situation. If the Pakistani economy goes completely down the tubes, Sindh and Baluchistan are going to have to be liberated (like Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea) from the hands of a rogue Pakjab that is better armed and famously genocidal. Yet if the "sovereign state of Pakistan" continues to exist in name, there would be a fig leaf against Indian intervention, both for humanitarian reasons (to help the Sindhis or Baluchis) and for defensive reasons (to strike at Jihadi tanzeems or nuclear weapons sites). And just as NATO in Ukraine or Qatar/Iran in Yemen, China (and perhaps also Qatar and Turkey) will be doing their best to leverage the failed but still nominally-"sovereign" territory of Pakistan against India.

[Vayutuvan]

Not true!

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/g ... inflation/
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... us_dpg&f=m

I stand corrected. I didn't take inflation into account.

[Vayutuvan]

---X posting from Ukraine thread---
Putin has demonstrated that when you attack the west, its interests, or even a half way ally, you are attacking its system. .

Excellent post @cyrano gaaru. I have a couple of quibbles though.

1. Does this joining "System 2.0" mean that sanaatana dharma has to bow down to Abrahamic jurisprudence and their definition of democracy?

2. What if, a big if I know, Russia-China-India-Japan-Indonesia-South Africa-Iran can form an alliance to keep the West out of Asia? It can happen if China and Russia become multiparty democracies. Russia is halfway there, AFAIK.

[Vayutuvan]

Is the US a nation-state? The answer may vary depending on whom you ask, even in the US !

The answer is yes. After 225 years of existence, there is no question that it is a nation-state. Native American nations all are subsumed into the Nation-State of the US. Americans do have a culture of their own. It may be a young Nation-State but it is one. IMHO.

[Vayutuvan]

UAE, I believe, sees some value in reserving the right of sovereign nations to intervene militarily in other nations that may technically be 'sovereign',

Israel was also on the horn of same dilemma. They chose to condemn, but reluctantly. I don't remember where I read that but it was reported.

[Rakesh]

Israel was also on the horn of same dilemma. They chose to condemn, but reluctantly. I don't remember where I read that but it was reported.

Despite US request Israel refrains from co-sponsoring UNSC resolution against Russia
https://www.timesofisrael.com/despite-u ... st-russia/
26 Feb 2022

After rebuffing US at UNSC, Israel set to back General Assembly vote slamming Russia
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-le ... cial-says/
28 Feb 2022

[Mort Walker]

Is the US a nation-state? The answer may vary depending on whom you ask, even in the US !

The answer is yes. After 225 years of existence, there is no question that it is a nation-state. Native American nations all are subsumed into the Nation-State of the US. Americans do have a culture of their own. It may be a young Nation-State but it is one. IMHO.

The Cherokee and Navajo sovereign nations have condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/the ... nst-russia

[Cyrano]

These are deep questions and I could be wrong trying to crystal gaze here, but I'll try. May be our wise forum gurus can opine as well.

1. Does this joining "System 2.0" mean that sanaatana dharma has to bow down to Abrahamic jurisprudence and their definition of democracy?

Won't be required, if India is able get stronger quickly, strength determines whose jurisprudence and definitions matter. India must however contain proselytisation by embracing and joyfully celebrating its own Dharma and keep its flock together. Xtianity and Islam of late are losing adherents steadily since they cannot respond to the stress System 2.0 creates on the individual mind. SD offers better tools to find meaning in life and preserve sanity as technology and AI reduce the mundane and increase means of action as well as scope for boredom and contemplation. IMHO only.

2. What if, a big if I know, Russia-China-India-Japan-Indonesia-South Africa-Iran can form an alliance to keep the West out of Asia? It can happen if China and Russia become multiparty democracies. Russia is halfway there, AFAIK.

Not sure if such an alliance would last, too much dissonance among the countries you listed at many levels. Japan is already part of system 2.0 and a good model for India in several respects, China is deceitful, Russia is not worldly wise, Indonesia is an islamic outlier, SA unstable. India can and must be the champion of System 2.0 in Asia to make it adapt and become acceptable in Asia. That will create our pole and sphere of influence in Asia and we need that to create equilibrium with the west and protect ourselves. We are already working on it actively since NaMo has taken over if you see how we have strengthened neighbourhood focus.

These are multi-decennial trajectories and India must create it's own deep state that's driven by national interest like the US because leaders don't last forever in democracies. But that's a wholly different internal matter.

[Rudradev]

---X posting from Ukraine thread---
Putin has demonstrated that when you attack the west, its interests, or even a half way ally, you are attacking its system.

...
outside.

Fantastic post, Cyrano ji. It merits multiple read-throughs and is very thought-provoking, but I haven't found a thing I disagree with so far.

[Karan M]

When you join somebody else's system, you are always beholden to it. India would have truly arrived when sanctions like the one imposed on Russia are next to impossible to be imposed on it, and second even if they were, India would have workarounds to them and be too strong to be but momentarily inconvenienced. In other words, we have to supplant the west, not join them.

[aharam]

I agree that physically invading a country crosses a line and changes the debate.

And sometimes, but not always, it breaks a universal principle. Emphasis on the “universal.”

Also agree that, for Western Europe + US (WEUS), one of them invading another of their own, or an outsider invading a WEUS country, are red lines. Breaking a principle you might say. So this red line is the principle we are talking about here: something that requires action, no excuses, no soothing words, no mumbling. No worrying about costs or interests being damaged.

Sir, once again, your formulation of the disagreement and structure is right on point, with some caveats. The "red line" principle I think is nuanced a little more selfishly. It is not just invading a country across a line, (a) it is doing so with a poor casus belli that is not believable, (b) autocratic government on one side and democratic on the other, and (c) not having any military supporters on your side. With the usual national interest caveats (no one will care if Venezuela attacks Colombia), I believe this applies anywhere. Adding to the above in this case, Ukraine's president appears to be winning the info war, has a populace that is fighting, even if it is most likely going to lose and is defiantly relatable to a lot of countries. Eventually democracies have to submit to popular will in their countries if there is overwhelming support. US is currently polling 80% support for Ukraine among both republicans and democrats.

US did (a) with Iraq 2 - WMD was not believable and France rightfully declined - I had many a fight on this here. But it did not make error (c) and (b) didn't apply. In Iraq-1 Saddam did the same thing with the same result as the current situation and the west attacked. There was of course the big national interest of oil stability, and this was before US shale, but oil alone was not sufficient - there has to be a story you can believably tell a democratic populace - Iraq-1 was thus a UN sanctioned op, Iraq-2 was not.

India attacking Pakistan would likely have a strong casus belli even if it didn't have (c) above, heck India didn't retaliate after multiple major attacks in the early 2000s - it has long a history of restraint. WEUS will make the usual noises and self restraint, but nothing more. Their response to Balakot was pretty muted and no sanctions unlike what would likely have happened in the decades before. Now Pak knows the response it is going to get - and it has produced the right conditioned behavior on Pak that allowed the Grosvenor house channel to go smoothly.

China attacking India in another, maybe longer skirmish like Galwan, in my view, will produce a response from WEUS quite similar to the one currently happening against Russia. India is strategically more important to the US than even Ukraine and China would have satisfied (a) because a hand drawn map on an ancient chinese parchment is not its accepted boundary, (b) and (c) above.

In my belief, after this event, US will attempt its best to bring India into its fold. As everyone here knows, Republicans make strong choices that affect strategic calculus such as NSG membership and they have been a good help for India. However, they are terrible with EU, and do tend to have too many unnecessary war hawks. Democrats harp on Kashmir - too many far left with little sense of what it takes to run a diverse country. Problem is Democrats are better at bringing EU along than Republicans, if and when they act. This has always been the conundrum. Given the pressures from this war, I believe this administration would likely work to bring India in, because it sees its national interest is tied to India, and this sets the conditions to bring EU and end the transactional relationship. Maybe I am naive here, but the conditions are there.

In all the examples above, I did not mention Japan. It really is WEUSJ - Japan is in many ways closer to US that even WE, and they are not Judeo-Christian either. My belief is Japan is going to rearm as well - US has been trying to get them to do so for decades now and seeing the 180 degree shift from Germany, Japan would follow. Yes, there is the WWII history, but Japan's relationship with the US is well beyond that.

Replying to @ramana, I did the same diagram you asked - to me it is a pentagon with US/UK/J, EU (they are going to rise), Russia, China and India. On classes of individual issues they may be multipolar, and EU itself is France, Germany, Italy, Spain to first approximation. However, on the principle above basis they will join together into US/UK/J/EU. Russia is in the process of committing seppuku. China doesn't see itself as a pole, so much so, it signed an all weather agreement with Russia. India is last pole. This is now a bloc system all over again - US/EU/J, RU/CN, and India is left with non-aligned redux. This is also what I believe @cyrano is saying above. My belief is India will move closer to the West, and will not get many more chances like the vote, and maybe naively I believe this time is different - WEUSJ's strategic interest is with India and India has economic weight it didn't have in the 60s, 70s or even the 90s. Its history of restraint makes it a responsible power, so the optics look good to the populace that eventually have to accept it. India will and should ruthlessly play multi-polar national interest - the US/EU/J bloc is not homogeneous internally and India's focus should be on its strategic competitor - China. I do believe China has made a pretty big strategic mistake tying themselves to Russia currently - either they will try to back pedal or, maybe their strategic calculus says they have arrived and with Rus are capable of taking on the West. China's relations with the West have reached the point, where Chinese planners may believe it is not redeemable - the one great outcome of Trump. US made a major mistake, naively believing economic growth from Western consumerism will grow China into a responsible democracy - that didn't pan out. And that's not all, the IP theft is real and hurts US business, and the Uighur issue and Hong Kong didn't go well at all. Now they are furiously working on decoupling US supply chains and making major investments in domestic industry. The writing is on the wall there.

To everyone in the forum, I apologize if I came across as lecturing - that was never the intent, although in fairness I have been accused of that even before I left India . @KLNmurthy's post showed that I had put cart before horse and hadn't explained the why. I have mostly lurked for nearly 2 decades on BRF, reading it many times a week. I created an account years after I started. Have followed many many great threads here, and go years without posting - I have nothing to say that hasn't been said. I am a firm believer of @chola and @hnair's mindset - China needs to be taught a lesson to achieve peace and then India will be on its path to leading everyone - ruthlessly pursue Indian strategic objectives.

The reason I posted here on BRF was because I expected a lively response, and the worst outcome would be my bruised ego. Doing this on a western strategic forum has the real likelihood of harming views against India, and I have no intention of doing that - I am no Barkha Dutt, nor a beltway think tank type. I have a high degree of suspicion of both.

Cheers
Aharam

[Karan M]

Sir, the fundamental issue here is that you think the west will stop at China and Russia. To many others, its but a, matter of time before the west turns its eyes on India, as the next competitor of threat and attempts to take it down or cut it down to size. Its a feature, not a bug. No amount of democracy or play nice will change this issue. Secondly, it's not just economic/military competition but the entire Wasp ideal of cutting a, pagan civilization with "inferior characteristics" (caste, cows, idol worship, conservatism as vs hedonism and worshipping whatever new fad the west comes up with LGTBQXYZ etc) down to size. Unless these aspects change, India is fundamentally a threat to Western supremacy and will always be disliked. We have to accept this and start finding our own north star. Till we can do this overtly, we have to do what we are currently doing. Push for multiple relationships and elect nationalist Govts that reverse decades of Western and PRC/Pak subversion of Indian society, by enacting FCRA and a sort of mental revonquista while also improving India's business climate and its development. A more hard nosed attitude towards hard power ie its military and scientific R&D also needs to be developed. Crucial for both natsec and future strength.

[m_saini]

.....Its a feature, not a bug. No amount of democracy or play nice will change this issue...

Perfectly summed up, Karan M saar your posts are always a treat to read!

[aharam]

Sir, the fundamental issue here is that you think the west will stop at China and Russia. To many others, its but a, matter of time before the west turns its eyes on India, as the next competitor of threat and attempts to take it down or cut it down to size. Its a feature, not a bug. No amount of democracy or play nice will change this issue.

Sir, this is where we disagree, and may have to agree to disagree. In my experience living here, West realizes that a population that follows a similar system with more people with eventually overcome it economically, and in the West money talks. This was realized even in MacArthur’s speech in the 50s. They thought China was the answer, till it became clear it was not. I do not believe India will have anywhere close to the same growth pains as a strategic competitor - West will not disappear, it will still carry a big stick, because history has inertia, but it is no longer capable nor interested in carrying about its view of world order, when the mass is elsewhere. The pagan part is not even a discussion other than in the hard core Bible Belt, and even there, there are local Indian doctors. It is hard to convince the populace to the same degree that a democratic country that is generally not expansionist is such a big threat other than economical that India can manage, and without it, it is hard to take drastic measures.

At the risk of sounding like lecturing again, and I will take the beating if it is so, the west does not view India as SDRE’s. Here the perception is of a economically well off and intellectual community. Decades of India restraint may have previously conditioned the West, but exercise of hard power is expected from India and long overdue, as it should be so. Even the monumentally wrong Kissinger thought that India would follow the standard pattern after 1974 and test through the whole program - the expectation was of exercise of hard power instead of the restraint India showed. I am a firm believer in hard power and in my view talking to a lot of different people from many backgrounds, US understands quite well that India will exercise it. Attitudes are changing sir, maybe not fast enough, but I am getting old and I have hope

Cheers
Aharam

[Pratyush]

Karan India is not disliked.

It's feared.

Because India is the only system that can globalise without any real application of hard power.

[venkat_kv]

Sir, the fundamental issue here is that you think the west will stop at China and Russia. To many others, its but a, matter of time before the west turns its eyes on India, as the next competitor of threat and attempts to take it down or cut it down to size. Its a feature, not a bug. No amount of democracy or play nice will change this issue.

Sir, this is where we disagree, and may have to agree to disagree. In my experience living here, West realizes that a population that follows a similar system with more people with eventually overcome it economically, and in the West money talks. This was realized even in MacArthur’s speech in the 50s. They thought China was the answer, till it became clear it was not. I do not believe India will have anywhere close to the same growth pains as a strategic competitor - West will not disappear, it will still carry a big stick, because history has inertia, but it is no longer capable nor interested in carrying about its view of world order, when the mass is elsewhere. The pagan part is no longer even a discussion other than in the hard core Bible Belt, and even there there are local Indian doctors. It is hard to convince the populace to the same degree that a democratic country that is generally not expansionist is such a big threat other than economical, and without it, it is hard to take drastic measures.

At the risk of sounding like lecturing again, and I will take the beating if it is so, the west no longer views India as SDRE’s. Here the perception is of a economically well off and intellectual community. Decades of India restraint may have previously conditioned the West, but exercise of hard power is expected from India and long overdue, as it should be so. Even the monumentally wrong Kissinger thought that India would follow the standard pattern after 1974 and test through the whole program. I am a firm believer in hard power and in my view talking to a lot of different people from many backgrounds, US understands quite well that India will exercise it. Attitudes are changing sir, maybe not fast enough, but I am getting old and I have hope

Cheers
Aharam

Aharam Sir,
your question started off innocently saying that India missed a chance of a life time ( and i am loosely paraphrasing it) by abstaining from the vote condemning Russia. All the other posters have given a much thought out answers and a a much more cogent response. your response changed from the West with similar/shared democracy values will/should be together and whole lot of issues.

I will only say this, you are fogetting what is the current India-Russia relationship - be it economic (dealing with oil and gas and a exports of food items) or militarily ( we have co-operation in Army, Airforce and Naval systems) to be given up/spoil/put on a back burner for West that is unreliable at best. you want us to destroy/spoil relation with a long time ally and partner so that in some years "maybe" we will be allowed to co-operate with the west. ( that idiom Bird in hand worth two in a bush comes to mind).

When we were facing China in Doklang and in Galwan I didn't hear any of these Western countries come to our aid or in the worst case sanction or stop China. The West will fight China to the last Indian/ taiwanese just like they are fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

the current US is soon going to go into the grip of Religion of peace looking at the second level of people appointed in the current White House and the leaders decide the course of action and the media parrots it. otherwise you wouldn't have people sermonizing from Wapo, NYT, Time or anyone else either regarding India while turning blind eye to Chinese actions in Tibet, Xinjiang, HK.

Besides the business is too intertwined with China and complete decoupling will be difficult (it will be like a drug addict weaned away from his favorite joint). they will not move against China, but will have no compunctions to move against India if china acquiesces to their demands. The West has a lot to answer for and also do if they truly want India in her corner. they don't have to do much, just follow the rules agreed on prior will be good, right now the west is dilly dallying around Pakistan and China, so India is justified in playing cards close to her chest.

[aharam]

@aharam ji and @Rakesh ji,

Please take a look at this report. Since it is not directly related to this thread, I am posting a pointer to the post I made in another thread on BRF.

viewtopic.php?p=2537082#p2537082

If Russia and US are working together even after the UN Security Council showdown on Ukarine, I don't see why the US would not work with India, given that India is an ally the US sorely needs for tracking.

I have to admit this blows my mind sir. The only logical reason I can see is Russia’s back channel with Israel being that important. Otherwise, a nuclear deal with Iran and removal of sanctions brings Iranian oil into the West to reduce dependence on Russian oil - the last sector not subject to SWIFT sanctions. I am too stupid to see see the next level of this game here - in the current situation, how does this help Russia.

Cheers
Srinidhi

[Cyrano]

An excellent interview with former Indian Permanent Representative Shri Asoke Mukerji for understanding why India voted the way it did at the UN SC and it's workings and India's outlook. I bet most of the media commentators and critics jumping up and down are unaware of this:

[Karan M]

Sir, this is where we disagree, and may have to agree to disagree. In my experience living here,

Precisely the point sir. You reside there and are hence granted the privilege of being one of them. We will never be. We will continue to see our systems attacked, our geopolitical ambitions curtailed (until and unless they dovetail with the west's interests ie contain China, produce cheap goods, not compete with their hitech exports eg vaccines). We don't enjoy the largesse residents will. At best, you face a glass ceing and racism. We face containment, using all and every means necessary, to ensure we don't develop ambitions and aims beyond what has been deemed acceptable for us.

West realizes that a population that follows a similar system with more people with eventually overcome it economically, and in the West money talks. This was realized even in MacArthur’s speech in the 50s. They thought China was the answer, till it became clear it was not. I do not believe India will have anywhere close to the same growth pains as a strategic competitor - West will not disappear, it will still carry a big stick, because history has inertia, but it is no longer capable nor interested in carrying about its view of world order, when the mass is elsewhere. The pagan part is not even a discussion other than in the hard core Bible Belt, and even there, there are local Indian doctors. It is hard to convince the populace to the same degree that a democratic country that is generally not expansionist is such a big threat other than economical that India can manage, and without it, it is hard to take drastic measures.

Sir, I dont know which data you are looking at, but it is clearly directly opposite to what India is facing. The hatred for India's native faith is overt and expressed in the most progressive of outlets from the NYT, to the WaPo. Every Tom, dick and Harry from the US establishment seeks to lecture India on its tolerance, this and that. Its trade commissions seek to curtail India's decisions on pharma, on its IP rights. Its State Dept routinely pokes into India's internal affairs and holds jamboree celebrating specific groups which are completely against a strong nationalist India. After all this, you think the west accepts us? That they like a Yogi or a Modi running a non Xian country with nukes which doesn't promptly roll over whenever its hectored? In which world, sir. The average Americans like or dislike for you is nothing compared to the establishments belief that we are poor, uncivilised and need to be brought into the light by becoming brown copies of Joe Sixpack, suitably "progressive" and whipping ourselves over our evils like caste, wimmen oppression and all the things we brown folks do. What will prevent them from going overboard is if India develops a rigid framework of laws and rules, which are effectively enforces preventing subversion, and if we develop sufficient military and economic heft which allows us to retaliate, plus take out the local proxies like Pak, making even Russia style sanctions pyrrhic. The world runs on deterrence and hard power.

At the risk of sounding like lecturing again, and I will take the beating if it is so, the west does not view India as SDRE’s. Here the perception is of a economically well off and intellectual community. Decades of India restraint may have previously conditioned the West, but exercise of hard power is expected from India and long overdue, as it should be so. Even the monumentally wrong Kissinger thought that India would follow the standard pattern after 1974 and test through the whole program - the expectation was of exercise of hard power instead of the restraint India showed. I am a firm believer in hard power and in my view talking to a lot of different people from many backgrounds, US understands quite well that India will exercise it. Attitudes are changing sir, maybe not fast enough, but I am getting old and I have hope

You may have hope sir, but I am also getting old and I don't see the hubris engrained via decades of untrammeled supremacy enjoyed by the western ecosystem, the print $$ away ecosystem allowing for Capex driven devpt while the sane capital is denied to anyone the west seems unacceptable, tge bomb anyone you wish mindset, whosoever we decide is evil is evil and loathsome mindset, going away anytime soon. From academics to establishmebt insiders, most commentators are invariably smug and supercilious when it comes to talking about us uncivilised native brownies.

Modi is acceptable only insofar as he dances to the west's tunes. Moment they realize he has aatmanirbharta aims, is unabashedly Hindu, he is called names and every attempt made to get him out of power.

Just because a handful of you, relatively speaking, made it abroad, due to your skills and ethics, doesn't mean, we in India get the benefit of perception that you've been extended beyond a point. And that benefit is extended to you too, as long as you are a "model minority".

Furthermore sir, the same bunch who decided you were harmless are now fed up of you lot waltzing around believing you are the same as them. Equality labs, Soros, Omidyar et al are now running a heavily funded campaign convincing the powers that be that most Indians are casteist, tying it up with BLM, anti discrimination movements. The free pass extended - as long as you put in 4x the hours of the natives and "knew your place", will slowly be withdrawn. Don't take my word for it sir, but please look beyond the folks you interact with, and see the moves underway on multiple fronts to disenfranchise the NRI community from its image of being a model minority.

At that point sir, I am afraid you'll have to revisit a lot of your beliefs regarding the establishment which you've hewn to, is ever going to be equitable. The west, as a bloc, has a lot going for it, and much to admire in what it does for its citizens, but pigs will fly sir before they accept rivals as peers.

[Karan M]

.....Its a feature, not a bug. No amount of democracy or play nice will change this issue...

Perfectly summed up, Karan M saar your posts are always a treat to read!

Thank you sir.

[Karan M]

Karan India is not disliked.

It's feared.

Because India is the only system that can globalise without any real application of hard power.

Feared, disliked, loathed and sought to be utilised. Brit empire ran on Indian manpower. We make for good gungadins in the Western scheme of things.

But we are also taken for granted and not taken seriously, precisely because we overrate our soft power and ignore hard power. No amount of yoga, moral preaching makes up for technology access, financial wherewithal and a huge economy that makes stuff. That's hard power. As is homegrown military tech when combined with the willingness to use force as versus moral grandstanding.

[Pratyush]

Agreed.

Given the stupidity displayed by the west.
I am coming round to the view that India while trying to maintain it's autonomy should aid PRC in dismantling the US led global order. Over the next few decades. At least in terms of financial services sector. The UN led system is nearly dead. It needs to be put down. With or without extreme prejudice.

We are going to be on a knife's edge. But it's not impossible.

[anishns]

+108

[Karan M]

IMHO we have to do what PRC did, grow fast, while, assisting the west in containing it (the PRC deserves no better), develop rapidly while maintaining ties with Russia and reducing our reliance on any and every imports beyond value addition and niche items. Grow our economy to be the next PRC, but without its dump state debt and get growth joke. They are frightfully corrupt and inefficient. But they do get growth. We need to reform our business ecosystem and chase efficiency. The crony capitalists are not the answer anymore. Plus take out Pak and control Bangladesh plus the jihadi gang, to ensure a locally conducive natsec environment.

[Pratyush]

+108 to all the points.

[Karan M]

As far as the west is concerned, they will never change. As they decline, viciousness will increase in attempting to claw us down. More groupism will occur. We just have to avoid outright conflict and pursue hard power. All the yackety yack, viswaguru stuff is window dressing for an idea others already believe in, because they see a rich, powerful civilization which they stare at in envy or admiration. And it's high time we also looked at becoming more meritorious and retaining our talent not merely social justice and sops, exporting a lot of our talent to societies who use them to create power, to boss over us. True irony, that.

[Pratyush]

Indeed,

It's not often that events outside India place in stark focus what the future holds. If we don't resolve our problems post haste.

It's almost like a Seldon crisis. Every crisis presents certain opportunities. With resolution of every crisis future course of action available to us is further restricted.

[arshyam]

Attitudes may be changing in the US, but there are plenty of caveats: whose attitudes, and towards whom? From my experience, Americans are generally friendly and easy going, but those are white Americans typically living in one of the seaboards. Others are friendly to a level of toleration, but that's it. Black Americans? Very little interaction unless you own a convenience store downtown.

Which is fine, but there is a nuance here: they (white Americans) are friendly to Indians who go there for mostly educational+employment reasons, and these Indians are typically well educated, speak great English, have some money (at least middle class in India), and generally conform to western expectations of individual existence. Basically, Indians who mould themselves to what Americans expect get along very well. Most BRFites would fall in this bucket. This does NOT apply to those who migrate out of poverty - so you won't see taxi drivers or gas station attendants getting any respect beyond basic human courtesy. They may not be outrightly racist, but won't treat these Indians any differently from other ethnicities doing similar jobs.

Would the above attitudes get transposed to all Indians in India? I doubt it. At best, the mild tolerance shown to the gas station attendants, provided we don't rock the boat too much. Maybe some pity and extra sympathy if we hype up the slumdog and heathen rhetoric. But a confident self-assured India that takes positions in her own interest? I have my doubts.

Second, most desis interact with white Americans and get an impression similar to what @aharam sir shared. No issues, I've seen some of that myself. But in a decade or two, these white Americans would be in a minority, and Latinos would be the single largest ethnicity. What will be the impact of that shift? No one knows. We all kind of assume the current WASP-dominated deep state and the (genuinely) liberal white attitudes would continue in perpetuity, but is that a valid assumption? One wonders.

[arshyam]

One mistake we tend to make is to apply our world view to how others view us. Indians are an inclusive people, but the west has a far lower standard called tolerance, which is expressed through their definition of secularism. So any future competitive engagement would run into that contradiction - the west would at best tolerate us, while we expect them to include us.

Our national policy should NOT make that mistake.

[Cyrano]

Nice posts by many posters, throwing lights on different facets of the subject. Let me add my 2 centimes:

How India is viewed in Europe (the phoren land I'm most familiar with) by people, top 3 in the order of immediate recall -
- A nation of a billion+ colourful, exotic & chaotic people, Bollywood, yoga, mysticism
- Huge income disparity, few ultra rich, most are poor
- IT powerhouse, tech savvy, space farer

How India is viewed by European Govts - I'm generalising a bit across EU countries here:
- Large, populous nation with many problems and some opportunities,
- Not sure what they want these days, earlier it used to be simple - aid, visas and support on Kashmir
- Far less visible, less influential and in-decisive compared to the other asian power China, but India is also non threatening

Of course business folks and govt officials who regularly deal with India will be much more knowledgeable and nuanced, but to the extent EU aam janata and random official or politician is concerned, I believe this is pretty much what we evoke and how we are seen.

While there are Xtian evangelical groups, xenophobes and racists everywhere, they represent a microscopic minority interest. The stark reality of the matter is that India appears too infrequently in their horizon as a nation of interest (cultural, commercial, strategic or as a threat). The fact that we abstained in the recent UN SC vote went largely unnoticed, no one actually discussed India's position in TV debates.

As immense the progress we have made in the last 75 years may seem to us, the West perceives an equally big chasm between where we currently are and where they are, on a number of specific parameters and overall.

So my view would be to attribute most perceived slights, insults or neglect to ignorance and lack of traction points than some malicious uber civilisational conspiracy driven by some Soros or pope. In most people-people, business-business, govt-govt dealings such sentiments are largely irrelevant, and one off incidents caused by some idiot are roundly condemned.

Now lets come to mainstream print & TV media: They do not represent the views of people, business or govt but do play a role on shaping their "general view" about India. India makes it into news quite infrequently and when it does, mostly on the recall topics I listed above - news anchors/staffers are as dumb as they are anywhere. They influence opinion by selection. Editorials and articles in Le Monde or their other national equivalents and current affairs press are quite widely read. I'd put the occasional TV docu along with these as well. They are manned by humanities background Sr journos, academics and think tank types ranging from (few & rare) serious scholars to woke SJW types. 99% bydefault are lefty - this is Europe after all ! These ppl actually shape opinion among all classes including those who make policy.

Most of the angst forumites have expressed regarding how the west treats us comes from this MSM's portrayal of India which is actually infrequent but whenever it does, you'll see it ranging from back hand compliments to somewhat negative to totally condescending, based on shallow knowledge and hardly any first hand experience much less any real understanding. Their shallow and erroneous knowledge is mostly derived from what they're fed by their Indian co-authors or co-correspondents be it on Modi, elections, hindutva or marital rape or HDI parameters.

A deeper phenomenon is also at play which actually has nothing to do with India but impacts us. The measure of someone's intelligence in Europe is how much he criticises the Govt while maintaining a pessimistic outlook for humanity. Positive stories of development and progress emerging from India really struggle to find a place here. This society has a fascination for Emperors and dictator(ship)s. Thats one reason Putin and China get a lot more coverage than India. It will be hard for such intellectuals to explain why a poor chaotic caste ridden India stays democratic, keeps progressing and stays happy despite so many problems, compared to themselves - the developed, educated, prosperous EU thats stagnating and depressing. (unless they join some ashram ) So such "shining India" articles are very rarely written or published. Such writers lose "intellectual" status.

Personally, among people, businesses or the occasional govt official or diplomat I've met over the years, I haven't found much evidence of the existence of a deep rooted civilisational disdain coming from a determination of something clearly undesirable based on a clear analysis of India. Like I said before, India is still mostly off radar for many good reasons or bad.

Someone who has lived in US/Canada for long can compare how much of the above corresponds to their own observations & analysis. I'd suspect it could be broadly similar.

This post is already long, will focus on some remedies and countermeasures that come to my mind later.

[Karan M]

There is a fundamental difference between those who reside in a nation and hence are subject to its unique cultural osmosis and willingly subsume into it. They then become citizens etc. Western countries have long had a higher general std of living and hence its quite logical that these new residents are (relatively) treated fairly, are happy with their (new) fellow citizens, fellow residents etc.

As versus the original nation where they came from, which experiences the actual foreign policy of the residents nation first hand. Or that developing nations citizens whose interactions with the members of that western nation is often quite different and far more raw given they are treated as foreigners through and through.

The latter is what BRF will be more concerned with. All the friendly treatment of immigrants apart, the everyday treatment of India, its civilizational interests, its foreign policy challenges, its access to markets and how its citizens are actually treated speak volumes. The rest IMHO is just feel good stuff.

There is, also how people talk in diverse groups where increasingly it is important to be seen as progressive, anti-racist etc as versus amongst their own. Yet the local political movements reveal the truth. Trumps support, Brexit all had a heavy element of xenophobia against outsiders and didn't appear from nowhere. They were already there and merely coalesced existing perceptions. And their opponents? The progressives? They are even more patronising wrt India and often attempt to impose costs on India for doing anything that is remotely in Indian interests or civilizational. So for all practical reasons, the disdain and dislike exists, call it fear or strategy if we wish, even if not openly articulated and is existing across both sides of the political spectrum. One will call you a street shitter, the other will say you are a patriarchal casteist who needs to be monitored, lest he mistreat women and those he considers social inferiors. Which is better. Neither actually.

Because, ppl are nice in casual convos or everyday interaction doesn't really mean much. They are nice to Iraqis. Libyans. Syrians. Does anyone even need to check what's happened to all three countries?

That will change only when NRIs become a, political force to reckon with, and are organized on the grounds of the Israeli diaspora to defend Indian civizational interests irrespective of which party is in power in India. Easier said than done. They are already being targeted by groups like Equality labs, the Soros-Omidyar-and other deep state groups, and the Qatar funded CAIR types, or PRC influence operators, which don't want them to coalesce as a united front.

[Rakesh]

...

@Aharam, Any chance we can table a motion in the United Nations...over the following egregious violation of human rights in the United States?

1) Commence a UN-led investigative inquiry into the murder of Trayvon Martin (17), Daunte Wright (20), Andre Hill (47), Manuel Ellis (33), Rayshard Brooks (27), Daniel Prude (41), George Floyd (46), Breonna Taylor (26), Atatiana Jefferson (28), Aura Roser (40), Stephon Clark (22), Botham Jean (26), Philando Castile (32), Alton Sterling (37), Freddie Gray (25), Janisha Fonville (20), Eric Garner (43), Michelle Cusseaux (50), Akai Gurley (28), Gabriela Nevarez (22), Tamir Rice (12), Michael Brown (18), Tanisha Anderson (37), etc, etc, etc. These are just a few of (heaven only knows) the number of African Americans that are killed by Police every day in the United States.

2) The repeal of voting rights in many Republican-led majority states despite the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. This repeal primarily affects large swaths of African Americans who live in that state.

3) The social and economic impact of the mistreatment of African Americans during Hurricane Katrina by both the state and federal governments.

All three violate the The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence which contains the following hypocritical passage:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But the US is leading the charge in the supposedly "irrelevant" governing body which is the United Nations, that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is a violation of all norms of human decency. But the Ukraine tragedy is a violation, only because humans of the Caucasian disposition are dying, so it is a monumental tragedy. It is a global catastrophe. But when the US treats her own non-WASP citizens as fodder, the world stays silent. Where is the equivalence? Two wrongs indeed don't make a right. But to ignore one wrong and highlight the other is the clear definition of hypocrisy.

In fact, it is India - through her abstention vote - that has taken the principle stand. Because when India voted in the UN to abstain from condemning Ukraine, she is also silent when the United States treats her own citizens as expendable and for political expediency. When US Presidents visit India, they never forget to *REMIND* India about maintaining her plurality and not lose her identity. However, that would be a speech better delivered at home, considering that the entire theory of American government is enshrined in a single, inspiring passage in The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.

People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones. I am confident you have heard of that morality line before.

[Rakesh]

@Rakesh sir, you are on a serious roll here with quality bookmark worthy posts. Wish there was a way to bookmark posts...

Thank you chanakyaa, but no need for sir

As for bookmark posts, I only know a manual way. Each post has the title of the thread incorporated into the post. If you click on that title, it will give you a link to that particular post. Copy that link and then bookmark that post in your browser.

Click on this example ---> viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7355&start=6320#p2537088

Sorry, but I don't know any other way. Perhaps someone else has a better strategy.

[Cyrano]

Karan ji,
If you were reacting to my post above on how India is perceived, then we are addressing two different things, though to a certain extent the image of a country influences how it's people are treated in a foreign land and vice versa.

[Rakesh]

https://twitter.com/MinhazMerchant/stat ... TwWXaq7wUQ ---> Excellent piece by ⁦@TheJaggi⁩ on why America’s “rules-based” world order is nearing its expiry date. (Note to ⁦@bsindia⁩ copy editors: it’s $10 trillion in the marked para not $10 billion).