India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 13 Apr 2016 23:40

Ramana garu, another observation in support of my schema.

When Xi visited India shortly after Modi's election, to talk about investments and trade... at the very same time, PLA troops were staging yet another incursion in Himachal.

WTF? I mean... what sense does that make, right? Why would you be leading a delegation to a country to boost economic ties and meanwhile letting your army challenge the territorial integrity of that same country? Who does that?

It makes sense if looked at this way. From Xi's point of view, the message is: see, I am an emperor, you are just a king. I can mess with you any time. I can offer you gifts, at the same time remove your dignity by spanking your bottom. You better fear me, hahahaha!

Now why would Xi want to send this kind of a message to the new Indian PM Narendra Modi?

Possible answer: because Xi WANTS to push India into the tighter embrace of the US. Make us sign CISMOA, EULA, all of that crap.

WTF, one might say!! What sense does that make! Why, oh why, would Xi WANT to strengthen US-India strategic ties?

Why indeed, unless Xi (and Beijing) knows very well that the "counterweight to China" rhetoric is utter bull cr@p... that the US simply wants to make India more dependent on the US for our security, not build us up into a threat against China.

If my theory is correct: the US, Pakistan and China are all invested in building a CPEC or AfPak westward egress for China via Gwadar to the ME and onward to Europe. Such a corridor would serve multiple interests for all parties involved: China, Pakistan, US, ME nations and EU nations.

India is the only nation that can existentially threaten the CPEC or Gwadar. India must be constrained from doing so. How to achieve this?

Make India succumb to the US' strategic embrace, of course. Make us sign on for EULA, CISMOA, BECA etc. Make us alienate the Russians (China again benefits by gaining preferred access to Russian military supplies in future that we won't have). And once we have put our foot into "inter-operability" with the US... fat chance we will ever be able to threaten the CPEC (or blockade Pakistan, or activate Cold Start, or retake POK/NA).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2016 23:42

Say we are taking the offence is the best form of defence move. Does LSA agreement mean they support all our operations against destroying Pakistan? How?

Does LSA becomes automatically void in fighting "friend of our enemy is their friend" case?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2016 23:44

V_Raman wrote:After a long time, great riveting analysis on BR! Kudos!

India needs tech to develop the Mil-Ind complex. There is no choice to USA to get that. They control all the levers. They gave it to China. They will extract their pound of flesh. It is up to us to dance.

Education comes from the root word "educato" that is to bring out.
Nowadays US law schools use the Socrates method* where the have the students discuss and the professor guides/channels the discussion and by this way everyone learns and more importantly it sticks!

In one way some of admins try this approach on BRF.
But not all are willing to participate.

* as opposed to the William Jones method where the student sits on a pedestal and the teachers on the ground!!!!

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2016 23:52

say use of: http://militarybases.com/afghanistan/

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Apr 2016 23:53

SaiK wrote:Say we are taking the offence is the best form of defence move. Does LSA agreement mean they support all our operations against destroying Pakistan? How?

Does LSA becomes automatically void in fighting "friend of our enemy is their friend" case?

NO. They wont support.
It is to use Indian bases for their operations in Indian Ocean and prevent IN from policing it.

-----

RD At that time the thought process was there is always a PLA faction in CPC that shows the stick to India to remind not to be taken by political leadership.

Its possible that China wants to humiliate India, at same time doubt they want to actively drive into US arms. This is the old zamindar and village dacoits scenario.
The zamindar keeps the dacoits to frighten the villagers so they come to him from help.

India broke that labyrinth in 1998.
Also China does fear ideology from India will come back again.
Falun Gong is repressed precisely for that reason.
Further go back to Hegel. China is not devious. Its only wants its big umbrella under the Chinese Sun.
They now have a replacement process for the Sun.

We are also ignoring demography, economics and collapse of world trade on China.

And West Asia is resurging to Arab-Persian conflict.

shravanp · Post by **shravanp** » 13 Apr 2016 23:54

@rudradev

As of today, Indian military's offensive weapons are vastly/overwhelmingly non-American. Those treaties can stop India only if India's weaponry is US-based and I don't think India would be foolish to put all her eggs into one basket (i.e US).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 13 Apr 2016 23:58

found this:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... 029736.ece
“As for LSA there is only one concern. What happens in the case of war?” he said.

Clarifications
“We do not support some actions and do not want to be part of it. Also we will not extend support for war with friendly countries. We asked the U.S. clarifications on how to deal with it,” he said. It could be done on a case by case basis.

pakistan can be a case now. no?

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 14 Apr 2016 00:01

ShravanP wrote:@rudradev

As of today, Indian military's offensive weapons are vastly/overwhelmingly non-American. Those treaties can stop India only if India's weaponry is US-based and I don't think India would be foolish to put all her eggs into one basket (i.e US).

I don't think we will be that foolish. But Xi might have been hoping we would.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Apr 2016 00:01

Shravan, I wouldn't be surprised if India does exactly what you suggest it shouldn't. The average Indian military wallah just wants the latest gizmos that work. He doesn't want to wait. The Russian, French, Israelis all have disappointed. French by haggling and asking exorbitant rates. Israelis, expensive (limited runs) and their stuff in the past (the real bleeding edge stuff) has not really worked (their basic stuff in service with their own military is ok).
He sees the American brochures & Khan bombing the cr@p out of the ME and says, wow.
Indian MIC has been hogtied due to corruption (local limitations can be == buy imports which benefit everyone). Investments today will pay off much much later.
Bottomline, don't be surprised if our great GOI goes ahead and signs a bunch of deals buying F/A-18s etc. Short term benefit.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2016 00:12

from that link:

India has asked the U.S. to submit a revised draft of the agreements which would then be studied in detail. “It should be on an equal footing,” the official added.

so, what is equal footing?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 14 Apr 2016 00:13

Rudradev wrote:Ramana garu, another observation in support of my schema.

When Xi visited India shortly after Modi's election, to talk about investments and trade... at the very same time, PLA troops were staging yet another incursion in Himachal.

WTF? I mean... what sense does that make, right? Why would you be leading a delegation to a country to boost economic ties and meanwhile letting your army challenge the territorial integrity of that same country? Who does that?

Common to send multiple signals to different audiences during state visits. E.g., during the current state visit of the Poodle's royal pups to Desh, BBC headlines about India have been overwhelmingly of a certain negative stereotype: "Will and Kate to visit Indian streetchildren", "Why are India's housewives killing themselves?" (link), etc. They know that during this state visit, the eyes of their own population as well as readers from other countries would be focused on India, so it is a good time to highlight the image of India or other issues that they want to propagandize. (In turn, India should have reluctantly 'controlled' massive demonstrations about Jallianwala Bagh, demands for return of colonial loot and royal jewels, etc).

Similarly, China wanted to highlight certain issues during the state visit. But they also put money into other PR ops aimed at Indian aam abduls - I saw roadside stalls in Indian cities selling "India-China friendship bands" and other cheap paraphernalia. One of the PR objectives might well have been what you wanted to suggest. OTOH, one can also look at it this way - the on camera horseplay between Chinese and Indian soldiers where no one gets killed is choreographed regularly for Western eyes, and creates a tension that hooks into the Western balance of power calculus from which both nations might stand to gain. China might gain in ways that you are suggesting, but India can also gain some leverage or at least buy tempii.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 14 Apr 2016 01:24

Agnimitra ji,

I don't think the Royal Poodles' visit to India is really a mixed signal at all... the ONLY reason they seem to have come is to inspect drains (and pose graciously for photo-opportunities while doing so). I do see your point about the choreographed India-China border dramas though. India also has an incentive to make the US think we are amenable to becoming a new Japan or South Korea... even as we are all the while preparing to become another PRC in our own right.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Apr 2016 01:52

LEMOA etc. In 1986, when Ronnie decided to bomb Libya, the French, the Spanish and Italians—all allies in varying degrees, denied overflights.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya

If the US decides to bomb Iran, we don't have to go along and can deny access. If we decide to bomb Pakistan, the US need not go along and deny access.

If the US tries to stop us from bombing Pakistan, it's not a LEMOA issue. If we try to stop the US from bombing Iran, it's not a LEMOA issue. Both countries will have a serious problem on their hands.

FWIW, LEMOA and whatever they end up calling CISMOA and BECA, are all symbolic for AC—"I got something to justify the trip and the time." We need AC to get some 'wins' and in exchange get help in area we need help on (Vishal, MII/MIC/CENTCOM + PACOM whatever).

The NDA problem is not being targeted by the AKA/SG crowd to rev up their votebanks who hate the US (and I might add, India).

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2016 02:38

Well, if US allows us to bomb Pakistan (for this agreement/do we care if they allow or not. once taken a decision, the pakis are finished) it would be an issue between USA and Pakis. Now, that is not our headache even if it means destroying their complete infrastructure including nukes.

sometime it is hard to read and get what the khans mean and what they interpret per their laws. one has to be very careful. use case scenario analysis is ideal to get to the details.

it is better, such agreements are available online - perhaps **-ed for not revealing any secret reference to use of any type of weapon or capability.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Apr 2016 02:43

SaiK wrote:Well, if US allows us to bomb Pakistan (for this agreement/do we care if they allow or not. once taken a decision, the pakis are finished) it would be an issue between USA and Pakis. Now, that is not our headache even if it means destroying their complete infrastructure including nukes.

sometime it is hard to read and get what the khans mean and what they interpret per their laws. one has to be very careful. use case scenario analysis is ideal to get to the details.

it is better, such agreements are available online - perhaps **-ed for not revealing any secret reference to use of any type of weapon or capability.

They are all available online. Just Google.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 14 Apr 2016 03:06

Rudradev wrote: If my theory is correct: the US, Pakistan and China are all invested in building a CPEC or AfPak westward egress for China via Gwadar to the ME and onward to Europe. Such a corridor would serve multiple interests for all parties involved: China, Pakistan, US, ME nations and EU nations.

RD, your posts on #68 and #69 nicely captured the US/China/India dynamic. However, it could be a very bold to say that US can successfully direct China in certain direction for too long, before the evolution of the beast is beyond control from US perspective. It is possible but hard to believe. Complete CT, but US fully knowing, China's eventual rise, may have cut a deal let go of Asian dominance to China (by not obstructing) and helping by controlling India in exchange for allowing more US companies to Chinese market especially the financial sector and beyond using China a manufacturing sweatshop. This may appear to be easy win-win situation but US may very well have its own plans to slice and dice China at some point in future which they need India's help with.

One more angle. And this could be a long shot CT, but wanted to throw out there. At this point, Indians will allow China very very limited access it consumer markets and will not allow China to flood India's goods market in order to protect local manufacturing sector, jobs etc; UNLESS a third player, US, can change that by whatever means, in exchange for receiving above mentioned benefits.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Apr 2016 03:21

ramana wrote:
SaiK wrote:Say we are taking the offence is the best form of defence move. Does LSA agreement mean they support all our operations against destroying Pakistan? How?
Does LSA becomes automatically void in fighting "friend of our enemy is their friend" case?O. They wont support.It is to use Indian bases for their operations in Indian Ocean and prevent IN from policing it.
Also China does fear ideology from India will come back again.Falun Gong is repressed precisely for that reason.Further go back to Hegel. China is not devious. Its only wants its big umbrella under the Chinese Sun.They now have a replacement process for the Sun.We are also ignoring demography, economics and collapse of world trade on China.And West Asia is resurging to Arab-Persian conflict.

West Asia is burning and let it be for a while till go half dead. Best if Samurai and Shaolin slug it out and NOKO use opportunity to do MoKo on SOKO. India as friend should feign weakness , save ,accumulate good military economic Maal and encourage all to get in brawl. This is what USA did to Euro, so worth the emulation.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Apr 2016 04:31

Sometimes, simple explanations are closer to the truth rather than complex geo-political balance of power games and least of all CT.

Modi wants manufacturing jobs. There are very few industries that have not already bolted and are taking advantage of the outsourcing option. The US government has the most leverage on its defense industry. It is large and can use some low cost labor, to reduce their own costs. Without foundational agreements, it is not possible to say service an F18 in India. Hence this deal. It is being viewed from a narrow prism.

http://defenceaviationpost.com/2016/04/ ... hter-jets/

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 14 Apr 2016 04:40

ShauryaT wrote:Sometimes, simple explanations are closer to the truth rather than complex geo-political balance of power games and least of all CT.

Modi wants manufacturing jobs. There are very few industries that have not already bolted and are taking advantage of the outsourcing option. The US government has the most leverage on its defense industry. It is large and can use some low cost labor, to reduce their own costs. Without foundational agreements, it is not possible to say service an F18 in India. Hence this deal. It is being viewed from a narrow prism.

http://defenceaviationpost.com/2016/04/ ... hter-jets/

You nailed it. Manufacturing jobs plus the flywheel effect of the new tech and methods.. Occams's Razor...

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 14 Apr 2016 05:02

No Ramana guru, I hadn't heard about it before but I would love to learn about them. Any books articles in books dhaga would be helpful.

One more thing Massa also plans to keep a military base in afg even after everything. That way they intend to control the link, that is what Pakis and cheenis don't like even though CPEC being their fathered child. They don't want massa's presence that is the only thing pakis have been trying long since withdrawal but uncle being uncle would not budge.

Just a pointer Rdev ji, if indeed cheenis hugging massa's arm what role does our base in Tajikistan play in all this with Russian help, that is also a choke point if developed with Russi help ???

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 14 Apr 2016 05:32

Interesting snippet. Apologies if posted & discussed hajaar times already. TSJi might want to add this to his scrapbook.

While the previous United Progressive Alliance government had stopped the recovery of remains following objections by China, which claims Arunachal Pradesh to be its territory, the Narendra Modi government gave Americans fresh permission.

The US is seeking to recover the bodies of American aircrew who died in crashes while flying resupply missions between Assam and Kunming in China during the war.

Just how many planes and crews were lost I wonder? It's a pretty hostile flight path for prop planes.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 14 Apr 2016 05:46

ShauryaT wrote:Sometimes, simple explanations are closer to the truth rather than complex geo-political balance of power games and least of all CT.

Perhaps true, but the sad thing about India, and even analysts here at BRF, is that no one says what India wants

Usually, there is a long purvapaksa of US, China, Pakistan and then a tirade or hand wringing by the powerless hindoos!

rudradev wrote: Now why would Xi want to send this kind of a message to the new Indian PM Narendra Modi?

There is value in your overall analysis, but one question stands - is there a condom-trinium? (US-China-TSP)

Or are there different countries pursuing their own interests with some overlap...
The Chinese for example may just be suffering from "Luttwakian Autism?" The PLA more so than Xi...
TSP maybe economically desperate enough to put their eggs into CPEC even if it makes no economic sense inshallah!
The US's pivot to Asia may really be to contain India

- China and her autism merely a tool to that outcome

While it is delicious to read your analysis, it would be more interesting to see whats India's desired outcomes list?
Playurs will always be playing and haturs will always be hating
Especially what does India want to use the US to achieve?...

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 14 Apr 2016 05:48

ShauryaT wrote:Sometimes, simple explanations are closer to the truth rather than complex geo-political balance of power games and least of all CT.

Modi wants manufacturing jobs. There are very few industries that have not already bolted and are taking advantage of the outsourcing option. The US government has the most leverage on its defense industry. It is large and can use some low cost labor, to reduce their own costs. Without foundational agreements, it is not possible to say service an F18 in India. Hence this deal. It is being viewed from a narrow prism.

http://defenceaviationpost.com/2016/04/ ... hter-jets/

ShauryaT, just trying to understand. Why is it that US has more power on one set of private sector (defense) than other (lets say IBM which produces most of the technology servers in China)? Why does Modiji think that defense sector jobs which tends to be very specialized in nature has the potential to employ more Indians than lets say hiring West Management Inc. (NYSE symbol WM, just to pick one private sector) which is one of the largest residential and industrial waste disposal companies to clean up and employ good waste disposal practices in India's hundreds of first and 2nd tier metro cities? If defense sector has so much potential to cut cost, why did US manage to outsource most of outsourcing to China, except defense? What is LSA has to do with producing F-18s in India, if cutting cost using outsourcing by itself is such a compelling argument?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2016 06:06

Rudradev wrote: India is the only nation that can existentially threaten the CPEC or Gwadar. India must be constrained from doing so. How to achieve this?

What have you been smoking? India threaten Gwadar existentially!! Arre Bhai, India does not respond to Pakistani orchestrated and Chinese supported multiple massacres taking the lives of thousands of Indians on it's own soil for decades and you think India has to be constrained from going after Gwadar or CPEC??

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Apr 2016 06:08

RD saar,
I am not quite convinced that China wants to drive India into US arms.

I think the behaviour of these big global powers can be decoded by understanding Machiavelli's teachings. China also seems to have learnt these. Even Pakistan follows these to some extent. Only India (land of Chaanakya) doesnt seem to understand these.

broadly, the behaviour can be summed up as:
- either you bully others or others will bully you. Offensive defense.
- ends justify means.
- alliances are temporary, interests are permanent.
- create problems, then offer solution in return for concessions.
- divide & rule. Support the weaker party to weaken the stronger party.
- probe others for weakness to determine how much you can get away with.
- glorify self & criticize competitors. Propaganda.
- feign public moralty while practicing realpolitik secretly.

China is simply following in the footsteps of the west. China is a better student of west compared to India.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Apr 2016 06:13

Manufacturing outsourcing has been going on in the US, since a very long time. Starting from East Asian to SE Asian and now the biggest component to China. Not to mention in other regions of the world too. However, US/EU defense products are banned from being sold to China (post Tinananmen effect). So no question of them being produced there or being serviced there. The government pays for defense sector directly and hence has the most leverage. HAL or Reliance Aerospace (made the name up) cannot have a repair and servicing agreement say with the US Navy without having virtually free rights to come in and go as you please in the host country.

India hopes that such advanced manufacturing capabilities will propel associated high tech manufacturing industries to also move in, as an MIC usually has spin off effects. India will get its share of jobs from direct US defense manufacturing and service outsourcing and indirect associated high tech industries over time.

India has always eyed this high tech manufacturing sector.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Apr 2016 06:15

ldev wrote:
Rudradev wrote: India is the only nation that can existentially threaten the CPEC or Gwadar. India must be constrained from doing so. How to achieve this?
What have you been smoking? India threaten Gwadar existentially!! Arre Bhai, India does not respond to Pakistani orchestrated and Chinese supported multiple massacres taking the lives of thousands of Indians on it's own soil for decades and you think India has to be constrained from going after Gwadar or CPEC??

I agree with RD here. ldev: The right leadership can change things overnight. What you are referring to is a leadership vacuum - not a capability one and certainly not innate capability.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 14 Apr 2016 06:16

johneeG wrote: China is simply following in the footsteps of the west. China is a better student of west compared to India.

You are overstating what China is doing and underestimating their autism... ironically playing into US arms...
The west never had and will perhaps never have ghost cities, slave camps, harmonious society, confusion-ism, etc.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Apr 2016 06:20

Pulikeshi wrote:
johneeG wrote: China is simply following in the footsteps of the west. China is a better student of west compared to India.
You are overstating what China is doing and underestimating their autism... ironically playing into US arms...
The west never had and will perhaps never have ghost cities, slave camps, harmonious society, confusion-ism, etc.

No. Its just that Chinese propaganda is inferior quality than western propaganda. But, Chinese are catching up.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2016 06:39

SaiK wrote:from that link:

India has asked the U.S. to submit a revised draft of the agreements which would then be studied in detail. “It should be on an equal footing,” the official added.
so, what is equal footing?

When your master is standing with both feet on your back.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 14 Apr 2016 06:43

ramana wrote:
SaiK wrote:Say we are taking the offence is the best form of defence move. Does LSA agreement mean they support all our operations against destroying Pakistan? How?

Does LSA becomes automatically void in fighting "friend of our enemy is their friend" case?
NO. They wont support.
It is to use Indian bases for their operations in Indian Ocean and prevent IN from policing it.

sorry ramana, I'm going to go by Cosmo advice to respond to this from what I understand using:

Cosmo_R wrote:They are all available online. Just Google.

I think they will have to. .. I will reveal to which document I am referring to only after I understand the various view points here.

Here is what I read:

1. cash: both parties can exchange by cash; if India provides cash, USA can respond by cash for services.
2. replace in kind: both parties can scratch their backs in kind, or products and services/like bartering deals - for this, India must go do the similar ops - hence I asked the earlier question.. we can use afghan base to destroy pakis, if they use our bases to fight chips or other nations.
3. equal value exchange: similar or same goods and services

I will stop here. I want to to know why you said NO?

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 14 Apr 2016 06:50

The LSA is going to be one big rip off. US ships and aircraft passing through Indian naval and air bases on their way to deployments are going to refuel for free raising defense expenditure significantly - and then the Indian armed forces may not have enough fuel for an emergency like a natural disaster or for punitive action against Chipak. In return as the US DoD literally tosses junk away, it will then be thrown to India. Be it munitions, aircraft parts, rust bucket ships or thousands of damaged APVs - they will now be handed to the Indian armed forces. This what unkil has been doing to the Pakis and Thais for decades and now India too will be another recipient. Oh, and as American personnel pass through Indian bases it will be a big boon to the local prostitutes servicing those facilities. Throw in corrupt local officials in these places, and some cash, so all is covered up nicely.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Apr 2016 07:16

India-US defence partnership: Making haste, slowly

The LSA would help Indian armed forces, especially its navy, to operate far from subcontinental shores at a moment when New Delhi has to secure its widely dispersed interests in the Indian Ocean and beyond.

Written by C. Raja Mohan

US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter being greeted by Indian officials on his arrival at Debolim airport in Goa.

There is good news and bad news from the agreement ‘in principle’ between New Delhi and Washington this week on signing the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), now re-designated as the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA).

The good news is that the Narendra Modi government has the political self-confidence to sign an apparently controversial agreement with the United States. The bad news is that India, as a collective, has taken more than a decade to decide ‘in principle’ on a fairly straightforward agreement with America.

The LSA would help Indian armed forces, especially its navy, to operate far from subcontinental shores at a moment when New Delhi has to secure its widely dispersed interests in the Indian Ocean and beyond. Much like the historic civil nuclear initiative, New Delhi has had a terrible time wrapping it up.

It’s a pity that the Indian political class, the bureaucracy, the strategic community, the commentariat and the media — have turned the debate on the LSA, which is so patently in Indian self interest, into an agonising one about the exalted concepts of ‘non-alignment’ and ‘strategic autonomy’.

India now is the world’s seventh largest economy (nominal terms) and third largest in PPP terms. It is also the sixth largest spender on defence, and owns the third largest armed forces and a small nuclear arsenal. None of this heft seems to reflect in the way India debates its relationship with the United States.

The Indian discourse on the LSA was never about its technical details. Like the historic nuclear deal, it was essentially about the lingering Indian distrust of America. There would be little public interest or private anxiety in New Delhi if it were negotiating similar agreements with, say, Russia, France or Japan.

Although the LSA has drawn very special attention in New Delhi, the United States has scores of these arrangements, known as Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreements (ACSA), with allies, non-allies and international organisations.

A typical ACSA defines the objective as “reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies, and services to the military forces of one Party by the other Party in return for either cash payment or the reciprocal provision of logistic support, supplies and services to the military forces of the other Party”.

Many of these agreements explicitly prohibit exchange of weapons and other combat equipment. The agreement enables easy exchange of oil, water, food, billeting arrangements, repair and servicing facilities etc. during joint exercises and other pre-specified contingencies.

Like so many other creative foreign policy initiatives in our time — to reframe the border talks with China, secret negotiations on Kashmir with Pakistan, and the civil nuclear initiative with the US — the decision to expand defence cooperation with America came in the early years of the UPA government (2004-05).

The UPA government failed to pursue any of these initiatives to their logical conclusion. Ideological self-doubt and lack of political leadership saw New Delhi squander extraordinary opportunities that came its way during the time the UPA was in power.

After Pranab Mukherjee vacated the Defence Ministry in favour of A K Antony in 2006, the prospects for expansive defence cooperation with the US identified in the 2005 framework agreement steadily evaporated. If Antony deliberately limited the defence partnership with America, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was unwilling to overrule him.

It was in this extended tenure of Antony in the Defence Ministry (2006-14) that the issues involved with the LSA were allowed to be defined in terms of an “alliance” with America and a “strategic embrace” of the United States.

The proposition that the US wants to “entrap” India into a “military alliance” has always been a fanciful one. For the US, military alliances are serious business. They involve major legal, political, military and financial commitments that the United States has been generally unwilling to make since the height of the Cold war. In fact, the current political mood in the US is about retrenchment, and not making new alliances.

The US is certainly interested in stronger military ties with India. It is up to New Delhi to decide on the extent of convergence with Washington, and the terms under which it would cooperate. No one can compel India into signing agreements that it does not want.

The tragedy, however, was that the UPA government, instead of judging the issues of military cooperation with the US on merits, went into a funk. The defensiveness was reflected in the fact that New Delhi began to reject drafts of LSA that the Defence Ministry itself had proposed. Put simply, the US was indeed open to signing the LSA version drafted by India. But New Delhi, under UPA, would not accept ‘yes’ for an answer from Washington.

Returning to the good news, the NDA government chose to take a fresh look at the broader partnership with the United States. Modi moved decisively to resolve the outstanding issues on the civil nuclear initiative. The NDA government also renewed the 2005 defence framework cooperation for another 10 years. It reopened the negotiations on the LSA, and other so-called foundational agreements. The agreement in principle has come after New Delhi has satisfied itself that all its concerns have been met.

The Modi government has concluded, just like the UPA government in 2005, that security cooperation with the US would be an important part of improving India’s strategic salience in regional and global affairs. But unlike the UPA, the NDA government is less inhibited and more confident that it can deepen defence ties with the US on India’s own terms.

Modi’s most important contribution, however, may lie in turning the UPA government’s approach to major powers on its head. UPA justified its reluctance to deepen defence ties with the US by claiming that China would be upset.

Not moving forward with America during last few years, Modi knows, has not yielded much gains from China on issues of concern to India — whether it is terrorism emanating from Pakistan, or support for India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Nor does China defer to New Delhi’s sensitivities and limit its military engagement with Pakistan and other neighbours of India.

Modi recognises that it is best to deal with both America and China on the basis of self interest and by creating leverages. There is no question now of framing New Delhi’s relations with Beijing and Washington either on the basis of neutrality or equidistance. The defining question for New Delhi now is a simple one: “What’s in it for me?” While Modi is asking the right questions, he finds it hard to move New Delhi at a faster pace. That’s probably why we have an agreement ‘in principle’, and not the LSA closure.

Even as it draws close to the US in the defence arena, the NDA government has gone much farther than the UPA in opening up India for Chinese economic investments. No PM before him has battled the system in New Delhi for liberalising the visa regime for the Chinese.

Some purists in New Delhi might not recognise their versions of ‘non-alignment’ in India’s new economic pragmatism and muscular geopolitics. But India’s non-alignment was always like the tabula rasa that could accommodate as diverse initiatives as Nehru’s quest for a military partnership with America after the Chinese attack in 1962, Indira Gandhi’s Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union in 1971 as Nixon and Mao warmed up to each other, and the more recent claims for New Delhi as a ‘net security provider’ in the Indo-Pacific.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Apr 2016 07:32

C. Raja Mohan never failing to articulate the US case. Also, this "net security provider" verbiage is a US created one - repeated faithfully by MMS in 2012. Net security provider is how the US sees India. Translation: Under a US interests first on a table of equals. Instead, India should come up with its own phraseology and paradigms.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2016 07:33

ShauryaT wrote:I agree with RD here. ldev: The right leadership can change things overnight. What you are referring to is a leadership vacuum - not a capability one and certainly not innate capability.

11 Indian Prime Ministers of ever political stripe after 1971 have not reacted to Pakistani terror. The last time India proactively attacked was in 1971. That is now 45 years ago. India posing an existential threat to Gwadar and CPEC under these circumstances is laughable.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2016 07:39

ShauryaT wrote:
No LEMOA — possible reasons

Why specifically the Akula pullout? Because, per sources, the Russians fear that the air-to-submarine communications, which this agreement will technically facilitate, will permit the Americans to spoof the communications hardware on the ex-Russian SSN, etc., a risk the Russians are unwilling to take

I know you are close to Karnad, but this is nonsense. Karnad is saying that India will install US communication equipment on board the INS Chakra and as a result the Russians will pull the Akula submarine back. Does Karnad really think that the Indian Navy is so stupid as to install US equipment on board a Russian nuclear submarine leased to the Indian Navy?? Or is Karnad somehow implying that the very presence of US communication equipment in India will somehow spoof INS Chakra which could be on patrol hundreds or thousands of kilometers away? Either way it makes no sense.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Apr 2016 07:42

Your prerogative to laugh. I know what my nation is capable of. Why do you forget Parakram or do you also believe we faked that and did not mean it? If so, the onus to show Parakram as being a phony threat is upon you to be proved via credible sources. Anyways Vajpayee was able to secure the political objective of putting a massive plug (even if a leaking one) on Paki terror via the 2003 cease fire. ABV was able to make Pakistan from a front line non-NATO ally to the premier terror exporting country. May not satisfy everyone 100% but Modi has big shoes to fill. BTW: Gwadar is still not operational and neither is CPEC. Have faith.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 14 Apr 2016 07:43

Feel free to critique Karnad or anyone. What he is saying is, you cannot be in two tents at the same time. These choices made will have consequences that go far beyond the innocuous language of these foundational agreements.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2016 07:53

ShauryaT wrote:Feel free to critique Karnad or anyone. What he is saying is, you cannot be in two tents at the same time. These choices made will have consequences that go far beyond the innocuous language of these foundational agreements.

It is not a question of being in two tents. Every nation today is playing a balancing game. The Russians supply arms to China and India and now small quantities to Pakistan. The US built up China as a counter to the Soviets and now wants to build up India as a counter to China. In Europe the US plays the UK vs continental Europe and now wants to balance KSA and Iran in the Middle East. Has anyone ever thought that the Russians are playing a balance of power game between China and India? Give India a leased nuke attack sub to balance the Chinese who already have their nuke subs? And supply SU-30s to India and China as well. Maybe the S400 systems to both countries as well. So why should India not be in two or even three tents? In any event, India is going to build it's own nuke attack boats.

So I think it is wrong to live in abject fear of "Oh, what will the Russians do if we displease them"? I think the Russians need India as much if not more than what India needs them.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 14 Apr 2016 08:04

ShauryaT wrote:Your prerogative to laugh. I know what my nation is capable of. Why do you forget Parakram or do you also believe we faked that and did not mean it? If so, the onus to show Parakram as being a phony threat is upon you to be proved via credible sources. Anyways Vajpayee was able to secure the political objective of putting a massive plug (even if a leaking one) on Paki terror via the 2003 cease fire. ABV was able to make Pakistan from a front line non-NATO ally to the premier terror exporting country. May not satisfy everyone 100% but Modi has big shoes to fill. BTW: Gwadar is still not operational and neither is CPEC. Have faith.

Look, I think ABV's government did as well as they could under the circumstances they faced. But now, maybe with the benefit of hindsight, we realize that just as it was unrealistic to expect them to attack Pakistan, so it is unrealistic to hope for an attack on Gwadar and CPEC.