Indian Foreign Policy

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Bart S
BRFite
Posts: 1111
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:03

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Bart S » 13 May 2018 19:54

Parasu wrote:He is another one, cut from the same cloth, of which we already have an overflowing stack who recommend India must do no less than be pally with Russia


+1 million.

These people have an ideology driven objective (not necessarily Indian interests) in mind and fill in/cherry pick 'facts' and assertions to suit their narrative. The very opposite of what anybody with any pretence of being a strategic thinker should be doing.

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 13 May 2018 23:53

Neshant wrote:US is putting the moves on Iran which is a dangerous thing for connectivity between India, Russia and the -stan countries in between.

The dangerous thing for connectivity between India, Russia and the stans is dependence on Iran for it. If India cant take back what rightfully belongs to it, then no Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan can help it.
US must topple jihad loving mullahcracy of Iran. Chabahar project then can be used to supply US troops in Afghanistan circumventing the uber jihadi state of Pakistan.
With US dependence on Pakistan over, there will be no IMF funds for cockroaches.
Lets see how long Chipanda will continue to feed and clothe the 250 million plus bhikhaaris of Porkistan.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Neshant » 14 May 2018 00:52

Parasu wrote:
Neshant wrote:US is putting the moves on Iran which is a dangerous thing for connectivity between India, Russia and the -stan countries in between.

The dangerous thing for connectivity between India, Russia and the stans is dependence on Iran for it.


If US were to install a regime of it's choice in Iran, they would not allow ANY connectivity between India and Russia through Iran.

Do you really think US would end financing of Pakistan just because it has an alternate route to Afg.

They have been bank rolling Pakistan well before 911 came along for obvious reasons.

US could sooner execute a regime change in Pakistan than Iran if it wanted.

Mullah thocracy of Iran, crazy as the mullahs may be, has never harmed India.



All major foreign powers gate-crashing the neighborhood can only mean bad news for India regardless of what they claim their intentions are. It will be so now as it has been for all of history.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1431
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby g.sarkar » 14 May 2018 02:58

https://thewire.in/diplomacy/on-iran-an ... hard-place
On Iran and Trump, India Has Landed Between a Rock and a Hard Place
If India aspires to be a 'leading power', it may soon have to choose between its strategically autonomous goals, and those which the Trump administration has in mind for the region.
For some years now, India has liked to think of itself as a “leading power” rather than simply a “balancing power”. But if the Modi government’s response to Donald Trump reneging on the Iran nuclear deal is anything to go by, India may find itself being classed among the craven powers.
It is not surprising that in the run-up to the decision, Trump met French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Angela Merkel on the issue and spoke to British prime minister Theresa May. He didn’t speak to Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin because China and Russia’s stands are well known. But he did not bother to consult Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the leader of a country which is a close ally of the US and stands to lose a great deal from the decision. This is because Trump knew he could take India for granted; after all, the Modi government’s weak-kneed approach was evident when it avoided substantial comment on the US shifting its embassy to Jerusalem.
India’s official statement on Trump’s Iran decision began with the non sequitur that Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be respected, that the issue should be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy. “All parties should engage constructively to address and resolve issues that have arisen with respect to the JCPOA,” the MEA said, using the acronym for nuclear agreement’s formal name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There was, unlike the Chinese statement, no expression of regret that an international agreement which had the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution and whose termination has profound implications for the stability of a region which is, arguably, the most important external region for India, had been terminated so wantonly.
The issue is not about Iran’s right to the peaceful uses of atomic energy, but about ensuring that it does not develop nuclear weapons. The JCPOA is not some treaty that is under negotiation, but as the Russian statement pointed out, it is “a key multilateral agreement approved by the 2015 UN Security Council Resolution 2231.” In other words, it has the force of international law. The US which frequently swears by the “rule of law” now says it is “withdrawing”, not “violating” the JCPOA because it goes against its strategic interests. Mind you, this is a treaty in which the then Obama Administration was the lead negotiator. National security adviser John Bolton declared, on May 8, that “any nation reserves the right to correct a past mistake.” To this end he cited the Bush administration’s withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty, which he said the Americans abandoned not because the Russians were violating it, “but because the global strategic environment had changed.” The Trump administration earlier withdrew from the Paris climate accord, presumably because it does not serve its strategic interests.
This, of course, is a catch-all which can justify China trashing the arbitration award on the South China Sea under UNCLOS in 2016, or any future Indian decision to scrap the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, or for the Iranians to simply walk out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the North Koreans did in 2003.
....
Gautam

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 14 May 2018 03:10

Neshant wrote:
Parasu wrote:The dangerous thing for connectivity between India, Russia and the stans is dependence on Iran for it.



If US were to install a regime of it's choice in Iran, they would not allow ANY connectivity between India and Russia through Iran.

Russia has an economy half of India. Trade is minimal. Indian interest is in Afghanistan. Rest is hot air.
Do you really think US would end financing of Pakistan just because it has an alternate route to Afg.

Yes.
They have been bank rolling Pakistan well before 911 came along for obvious reasons.

They funded Pakistan to counter USSR. After that they reduced funding. Increased it again when they needed access to Afghanistan.
US could sooner execute a regime change in Pakistan than Iran if it wanted.

No, it cannot. Besides, Pakistan didnt have an islamic revolution and held Americans hostage. It doesnt threaten US ally Israel either. It already has nukes. Too many reasons to seek regime change in Iran and not Pakistan
Mullah thocracy of Iran, crazy as the mullahs may be, has never harmed India.

Neither has ISIS. Or Boko Haram. Or Al-Shabab.
I wonder who bombed the Israel embassy fellows car in New Delhi!!!
All major foreign powers gate-crashing the neighborhood can only mean bad news for India regardless of what they claim their intentions are. It will be so now as it has been for all of history.

Is it time to dhoti shiver?
Besides that sounded like "A stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India`s interest".
Parroting some line without any supporting argument.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4215
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Neshant » 14 May 2018 03:41

Parasu wrote:Russia has an economy half of India. Trade is minimal.


Clue in.
This is a link to the vast resources and markets of Central Asia, Russia, the Balkans, Eastern and Western Europe.
US strategy has always been to control all major trade routes present and future.
The future of the automobile, aviation, consumer goods and consumption in general is in Asia for the 21st century. All of which depend on the flow of vast resources from the hinterlands of the Asian and Eurasian continent towards South and East Asia.
All of which the US needs to control in some manner to maintain it's dominance.

Parasu wrote:
Do you really think US would end financing of Pakistan just because it has an alternate route to Afg.

Yes.


US desires no peer competitor. It has been bank rolling Pakistan to the tune of tens of billions well after the Cold war ended and claiming no evidence the country exports terrorism even with hundreds of thousands of Indian refugees being driven from their homes by the largest terrorist operation in the region. It's their means of maintaining a balance of power against India.

How long have you been on this board ?

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 14 May 2018 17:21

https://www.ft.com/content/8fc1b404-56c ... tlhomepage

Trump has ordered a U-turn over Chinese company ZTE after meeting with Xi.
Anyone remembers how he had mocked Modi after Indian government repeatedly reduced import duty on American motorcycles.
No wonder Modi wanted to meet Xi in Wuhan.
I hope, there was a serious long-term strategic dialogue in Wuhan. Americans are mostly arrogant low-IQ idiots.

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 191
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 14 May 2018 17:30

And now, Modi is visiting Putin for an informal summit in Sochi on May 21.
Good job by Trump to push India to re-energise ties with other powers.

https://in.reuters.com/article/russia-i ... NKCN1IF1GU

vinod
BRFite
Posts: 591
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vinod » 14 May 2018 20:27

The cold-war 2 is now very much a reality. The battle lines are being drawn. It remains to be seen who is on which side of the line and who are all sitting on the line!!

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 177
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Trikaal » 14 May 2018 20:51

Trump is essentially bullying India into following him. He doesn't care about Indian investment in Iran, India's trade and relations with Iran, or for India's strategic affairs. He wants India to trash the relationship that we have carefully cultivated over the past 2 decades at the drop of his hat.

India might want to show the middle finger to US but the question is, can we? Trump could very well deny India access to dollars as well, something that is needed for global trade. Europe is making noise but when Trump shows them the gun, they will all fall in line. We might find ourselves in a corner with countries like China, Russia and, believe it or not, Pakistan. In such a scenario, what should India choose? Drink the Trump Poison or bed with the enemies? I am honestly confused right now.

Personally, I think that with elections within a year, Modi might choose to follow America. Politically, an international level confrontation right now could prove very costly, especially if it drives up costs for public.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3076
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Rudradev » 15 May 2018 03:44

We will choose nothing, IMO. We will play both sides as quietly as we can, committing transactionally sometimes, but never strategically.

We will keep our cards close to our chest and our feet firmly on the line. We will make statements that people like Bharat Karnad and Brahma Chellaney will decry as "craven", "mealy-mouthed" etc. (though in fact, the only thing these worthy gents are "decrying" is that nobody of any consequence cares what they think :mrgreen:)

I always believed Trump would be bad news for India, now we're seeing him prove it. The only silver lining is that with all the turmoil going on in many parts of the world with epicenter in US foreign policy, as well as domestic divisions within the US establishment, there may be less attention and funds devoted to directly destabilizing India.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 177
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Trikaal » 15 May 2018 08:40

Rudradev wrote:We will choose nothing, IMO. We will play both sides as quietly as we can, committing transactionally sometimes, but never strategically.

Doing nothing implicitly means following Trump. He wants us to do nothing with Iran. In the face of dollar embargo, if India scale back investment or trade with Iran, that essentially means doing exactly what Trump wants.

In terms of statements, you are right. India will make all the right noises depending on who Modi is sharing a stage with.

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1468
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby wig » 15 May 2018 08:54

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/commen ... 88672.html
the author of the write up participated in the Track 2 talks with Pak
A view from Islamabad
Following India’s revival of the Track-II Neemrana Dialogue diplomacy with Pakistan, a delegation, including the author, went to Islamabad recently. However, the author feels there is no change of thought at the negotiating table.


the participants seem to be clear that the Pak delegation are in denial
There could be no resolution unless Kashmir is resolved was their constant refrain. References were made to 1947, United Nations Resolution on Self-determination, Kashmir and the Samjhauta Express. Buhran Wani was considered as a freedom fighter and frequent display of Pakistan flags in Kashmir is only a depiction of local public sentiments towards azadi, they said.
Strangely, what was evident between the two countries is that while Pakistan speaks with conviction on Kashmir, Baluchistan and Afghanistan, we are confused on Kashmir. For instance, we shall not talk on Kashmir, but are prepared to discuss it as a part of composite dialogue. No one speaks on their side of Kashmir kept as Azad Kashmir with a separate Premier and the President besides northern areas.
We were told to be magnanimous on the water issue being upper riparian and show humility as a bigger country in South Asia. On the nuclear front, Pakistan was suggested to bring a greater degree of security while ensuring that such weapons would not be used. Keeping in view the crow flying distance, it was proposed to have a robust communication level to even thwart accidental use of nukes.
Of all the issues, climate change was the most innocuous and could easily ward off the heat, as and when temperature on more vexed matters would blow up. Strangely, on Afghanistan, when Pakistan was asked to clear the position on 'strategic depth', they sprung a surprise as if they had heard the term for the first time.
China is seen as an embodiment of their politico-military strength. No criticism against China was accepted whereas the US was accused of being responsible for the current political turmoil in Pakistan. Incidentally, the US has not withdrawn its Non-NATO ally status to Pakistan.
Ishrat Hussain termed the CPEC as a golden opportunity for Pakistan with risks attached. Dispelling the debt scenario as is generally perceived, he said the CPEC has contributed an additional 10,000 MW to the generation capacity in Pakistan, overcoming its chronic energy shortage. Besides, it would lead to the constructing of highways and railways, making accessible even the backward districts of Baluchistan, running into short-, medium- and long-term projects. Further, out of the total commitment of $50 billion by China, 70 per cent would come as FDI, thereby signaling to other countries that Pakistan is an attractive place to invest.
Talks also touched upon creating a SEZ along the border where many Pakistani businessmen are interested in buying land to trade with India. On normalisation and people-to-people contact, the Pakistani delegation was told to stop skirmishes on the frontiers, including interference in Kashmir, to which there was complete denial. Instead, they accused us of killing 2,000 Pakistani soldiers and civilians.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6931
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby JE Menon » 15 May 2018 22:19

Rudradev wrote:We will choose nothing, IMO. We will play both sides as quietly as we can, committing transactionally sometimes, but never strategically.

...


+101 AoA

To the whole post.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chanakyaa and 17 guests