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: 1195
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: 227
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: 4362
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: 1552
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: 227
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: 4362
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: 227
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: 227
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: 593
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: 243
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: 3117
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: 243
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: 1495
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: 6957
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.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22667
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 22 May 2018 12:47

To continue the discussion,

India does not believe in 'Me First' approach: Sushma Swaraj - PTI
External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj today warned that the world was reeling under a storm of protectionism and said India did not agree with American President Donald Trump's "Me First" approach on the issue.

India, she stressed, believed in the concept of 'We, Us and Ourselves'.

"I was sad when President Trump, in the UN General Assembly, said his slogan was Me First," the external affairs minister said.

She was referring to Trump's speech at the United Nations in September last year when he had said, "As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first."

"There is a storm of protectionism at the global level which is centred around the concept of Me and Myself but India believes in the concept of We, Us and Ourselves. If everyone views the other as equal then there is no place for protectionism in it," she said.

Swaraj was delivering the first Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Memorial International lecture on 'Soft Power Diplomacy: Strength of India', organised by the ICCR.

After Trump's speech, Swaraj said she had a meeting with ministers of Latin American and Caribbean States.

"A foreign minister of a small country spoke about President Trump's speech of Me First. She said if everyone says (and follows the policy) of Me First then how will my country sustain."

Swaraj said she pointed out that India had a different approach.

"I said India does not have the tradition of (following the policy of) Me First. I said my speech will have (the concept of) Om Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah," she said, quoting a sloka from the Vedas that translates into "May everyone be happy".

"When everyone is happy then everyone will have the provision of food and security," she said.

The minister said India believed in the policy of assisting other countries, especially those who required a helping hand.

"If we don't do this then developed countries will continue to grow and under-developed countries will remain under-developed. So how will economic disparity reduce," she asked.


Sushma Swaraj said Indian culture, yoga, classical dance, movies, cuisine and Information Technology were a "treasure of soft power".

Narrating anecdotes about the craze for Indian films abroad, the external affairs minister said the passion was not restricted to Hindi cinema but extended to regional language films such as 'Bahubali'.

"Chinese President Xi Jinping wanted 'Dangal' to be screened at the BRICS Summit at Xiamen. The Indian ambassador in Mongolia wanted the movie dubbed in Mongolian as wrestling is the national sport of that country. When I met Prime Minister Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh of Mongolia , he said he wanted to be an actor in Bollywood. To this, I quipped we need handsome leaders in politics too," she said.

Swaraj said during bilateral meetings, foreign delegations proposed that the Bollywood industry shoot in their countries as it boosted tourism.

She also shared an anecdote on how leaders in the recently held India-ASEAN Commemorative Summit came up with a demand for a song from the Shah Rukh Khan-starrer 'Kuch Kuch Hota Hai' and for 'Bol Radha Bol Sangam' from the 1964 Raj Kapoor- starrer 'Sangam'.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 22 May 2018 17:36

Trump is undoing a decade of progress between the US and India that took off with the regime of Snake-Oil Singh and the N-deal and payment for it by buying copious amounts of US arms.

The slightest likelihood of sanctions against India will destroy whatever mil. cooperation has been achieved.All our recent arms purchases/ weapon systems will be affected, and it may also endanger purchases of civilian aircraft dumping Boeing for Airbus and even perhaps buying/building in a JV Russia's new narrow bodied aircraft in the 737 class.

Unless there is a blanket exemption for India, Indo- US relations will take a definite hit- forget about US birds for the MRCA tender, and the relationship will hit the rewind button.

It is sad that a growing positive relationship with the US, necessary in a multi-polar world is being endangered by Trump, his "Dolt" and a pompous Pompeo.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 22 May 2018 23:10

Allegations by the Catholic archbishop alleging Christians are being attacked becos of the Modi regime are now being echoed by his boss in the Vatican.

While there have been some incidents in certain areas, to insinuate that there is a conspiracy by the govt. at the centre is a load of crap.Allegations of democracy being destroyed, etc.This is direct interference by the Vatican city state in India's internal affairs and the Papal nuncio must be summoned for an explanation and given his boarding card for Rome if there is no apology coming from St.Peter's.
I
TV channel on right now.The news item from a publication called " Vatican News", is not from the Vatican at all says a Catholic bishop.He says that the official Vatican mouthpiece is another media entity.The bishop says that they have " no grudge against the PM or the govt. " whom they have met several times. and are happy with the PM.He is saying that he is a "co-worker" of the PM.
Blames fringe elements for incidents and says with the PM's help these elements are being kept at bay.

The debate continues.While the bishop (Mascarehnas) continues to say that he and the Catholic church support the PM, etc., the archbishop's opposite and controversial statements (the basis for the media entity in Rome agreeing with him), deserves clarification from the archbishop himself as to the accuracy of the facts stated by him or a statement from the Vatican whether they agree with him or not.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby g.sarkar » 23 May 2018 03:11

https://www.firstpost.com/world/donald- ... 76073.html
Donald Trump's sanctions on Iran could hurt India-Afghanistan trade, threaten vital Chabahar project
Washington/Kabul: US president Donald Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear accord and re-impose sanctions on Tehran threatens to derail a project to help build Afghanistan’s economy, endangering a key goal of the US strategy to end America's longest war.
The Indian-backed Chabahar port complex in Iran is being developed as part of a new transportation corridor for land-locked Afghanistan that could potentially open the way for millions of dollars in trade and cut its dependence on Pakistan, its sometimes-hostile neighbour.
Building Afghanistan's economy would also slash Kabul's dependence on foreign aid and put a major dent in the illicit opium trade, the Taliban’s main revenue source.But Trump’s decision to re-impose sanctions on Iran and penalise financial institutions for doing business with Tehran is clouding Chabahar’s viability as banks, nervous they could be hit with crippling penalties, pull back from financing.
“President Trump’s decision has brought us back to the drawing board and we will have to renegotiate terms and conditions on using Chabahar,” a senior Indian diplomat said. “It is a route that can change the way India-Iran-Afghanistan do business, but for now everything is in a state of uncertainty.”
....
The economic piece is really important to get a glimmer of hope for Afghanistan to move beyond a land-locked, poppy-based economy. We are now shooting that in the head," said Thomas Lynch, a National Defense University expert and a former US Army officer who advised the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on South Asia policy. “There is no other legitimate and reliable way to do that. You can’t do it by air, you can’t do it through Pakistan because they just extort for everything they do,” said Lynch. “The lifeline runs through Chabahar.”
In addition, by hindering the development of Chabahar, the United States will leave Afghanistan dependent on Pakistan, historically its main trade partner and outlet to the world. That would undermine another Trump goal of pressuring Islamabad to shutter Afghan insurgent sanctuaries on its side of the border and force the militants into peace talks.
....
Gautam

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 23 May 2018 11:57

^^
India has achieved 80% of its objectives in Afghanistan. Chabahar is not important for rest of it.
Afghanistan cannot be stabilised.
TFR of Afghanistan is above 5. No amount of foreign investment or trade can support such demographics. So fighting in the region will continue. US will withdraw or be locked down in its bases. India has generated sufficient goodwill to last a generation.
To fulfill rest of its objectives, India needs to smartly play the ethnicities/division cards in Afghanistan.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22667
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 25 May 2018 08:27

Modi to visit Indonesia, Singapore - The Hindu
In a boost to India’s Act East policy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will pay a visit to Indonesia and Singapore between May 29 and June 2. The External Affairs Ministry on Thursday announced that during the tour the Prime Minister was expected to focus on agreements in defence, skill development and connectivity.

“As far as defence cooperation with Indonesia is concerned, there is interest on maritime domain awareness and Navy-to-Navy cooperation is an important element (in this). We are also talking in terms of the renewal of the defence cooperation agreement,” said Priti Saran, Secretary in-charge of the eastern hemisphere in the Ministry.

The official said that defence interaction between India and Indonesia had intensified in recent years. “There are some agreements that are under discussion in the areas of defence, space and science and technology which are still being negotiated,” Ms. Saran said.

She confirmed that India was in talks to upgrade ports and airports of Indonesia. The maritime affairs minister of the country had informed that India would soon be getting access to the strategic port of Sabang on the Strait of Malacca.

She said a kite-flying festival featuring tales from the Ramayana and the Mahabharata would be the cultural highlights during the visit of the Prime Minister.

The second part of the tour will include a visit to Singapore. “Prime Minister Modi will deliver the keynote address at the Shangri La Dialogue on June 1. The dialogue is a platform to articulate regional security issues and our Prime Minister will convey India’s view on peace and security in the region,” Ms. Saran said.

Ms. Saran said the Shangri La Dialogue would be attended by several other international leaders but declined to confirm if Mr. Modi would be holding any bilateral meeting with counterparts from other countries.

I am glad that at last our PM is attending the Shangri La dialogue. We have been sending lower level delegation, many a time not even our defence minister, to this meet and it has been a sore point between us & Singapore as well.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1312
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 25 May 2018 11:01

Philip wrote:Allegations by the Catholic archbishop alleging Christians are being attacked becos of the Modi regime are now being echoed by his boss in the Vatican.

While there have been some incidents in certain areas, to insinuate that there is a conspiracy by the govt. at the centre is a load of crap......


What incidents are these ?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 26 May 2018 18:47

A few small churches in the north were attacked, some time ago.Was in the media.But no major incidents as is being insinuated by the cleric.In fact the Christian vote is increasing for the BJP as seen in Karnatake-40%+, which has probably alarmed the Vatican.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 29 May 2018 23:09

SSridhar wrote:To continue the discussion,

India does not believe in 'Me First' approach: Sushma Swaraj
I just love our EAM. Since the days she became a young minister in the Morarji Desai government, she has done the nation proud.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22667
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 30 May 2018 07:38

Jakarta or Male? Delhi in a dilemma over UNSC seat nominee - Sachin Parashar, ToI

s PM Narendra Modi landed in Jakarta Tuesday, Indonesia sought support from Indian authorities for its bid to become a non-permanent member of UN Security Council next month.

Modi left for his 3-nation tour of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore saying in his departure statement that his visit will give another boost to India's Act East Policy.

Indonesia will seek a commitment from Modi for India's support to its candidature and the success of his visit could well hinge on India's response, diplomatic sources said. President Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo and the Indonesian foreign ministry have turned the campaign for non-permanent membership of the UNSC into Indonesia's top foreign policy priority.

It won't be an easy choice for India as Indonesia is locked in a direct fight with the Maldives for the UNSC Asia-Pacific seat. However, despite having earlier committed support to Male, India is doing a serious rethink on its position ahead of the voting at the UN scheduled for next week. {I cannot imagine that after all that happened with Maldives & China, India would be trying to subvert itself by voting for Maldives and not supporting Indonesia !! The choice is simple and easy for us. The writing is very clear on the wall. Even Maldives would be terribly surprised if India votes for it!! Of course, Indonesia's recent offer of Sabang port for Indian navy has to be seen in this context.}

For India, Maldives in the past few years has proved to be a soft underbelly in the Indian Ocean in the manner in which it has sought to undercut India's authority by ramping up ties with China.

"There had been ups and downs in the past, there are (ups and downs) now also. But ties with Maldives are not broken and cannot be broken," foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had said in her annual press conference on Monday when asked about the Maldives.

A vote for Male might also be seen as an attempt to embolden a regime which defied all constitutional norms in the manner in which it recently implemented the Emergency. Often, in fact, its behaviour has bordered on downright insult for India like in the way it refused recently to renew the Letter of Agreement for the choppers gifted by India to Male.

Indonesia needs votes from around 129 countries for membership and it seems to already have support from close to 120. What is also playing on India's mind is that all Asean nations are supporting Indonesia and a vote from India will help it stand in solidarity with its Asean neighbours. The crucial UNSC vote also comes at a time Modi himself is looking to convince Asean about how indispensable southeast Asia is to India's foreign policy. His decision to participate in the Shangri La dialogue in Singapore is also seen in that light.

As the largest Asean nation, with a population of 270 million, Indonesia can facilitate India's Act East Policy like no other. The government sees Indonesia as an important partner in counter-terror operations and maritime security. Indonesia is also an important trading partner in Asean. The bilateral trade volume between the 2 countries increased from US $ 4.3 billion in 2005-06 to US $ 17 billion in 2016-17.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16965
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 31 May 2018 00:16

twitter


Indonesian President Jokowi gets first grandchild, baby is named ‘Srinarendra’. The President apparently shared this news with PM Modi today.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/amp/news/ ... child.html

8:50 AM - 30 May 2018

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1110
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ArjunPandit » 02 Jun 2018 01:16

Imagine him meeting the kid meeting Gandhi Scion someday

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20784
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Prem » 02 Jun 2018 11:01

https://www.economist.com/the-economist ... s?fsrc=rss
Why India avoids alliances

AS CHINA grows in economic power and military might, other Asian players are looking to India as a likely counterweight. Their thinking is that with its population set to overtake China’s in the next decade and its economy growing faster, India will be uniquely equipped to stand up to the region’s potential bully. So it is that big powers such as America and Japan, along with smaller ones such as Australia, Singapore and France (which has island territories in the Indian and Pacific Oceans) have with growing urgency courted India as an ally. Yet much as it sympathises with fellow democracies and harbours its own deep concerns about China, India keeps brushing them off. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has instead worked hard to cultivate personal ties with President Xi Jinping; in late April the two held an informal two-day summit in Wuhan (pictured above). India’s biggest arms-supplier is Russia, an increasingly close ally of China. Some in Delhi even counsel shunning the West and seeking a similar alliance with neighbours to the north. Why is India so aloof?To countries worried by the rise of China, the construction of a containing ring of military allies looks sensible. Individually, small Asian countries are no match for the Chinese dragon; allied with bigger powers, they might be. An obvious missing piece of the ring, just now, is India. This seems strange. India has plenty of reasons to be wary of China. The two fought a brief border war in 1962; each still claims territories the other holds, and this remains a cause of periodic scuffling. China props up India’s nuclear-armed rival Pakistan with generous doses of arms and money; it has made increasingly bold inroads in smaller countries that India views as part of its own traditional sphere of influence, such as the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Another annoyance is that China also runs a big and growing trade surplus with India. Partly in response to all this, India has warmed to America in recent years, signing small-scale military co-operation agreements and contracts for some American arms. It also sustains cordial military ties with regional democracies that would love a deeper strategic engagement. But even so India has consistently shied from formalising such relationships into anything looking like an alliance.
Frustrated Western suitors tend to interpret such prevarication as a lack of political will. But Indian dithering is less hapless than it may seem. Since its birth as a nation in 1947 India has consistently sought—though not always convincingly achieved—a full degree of strategic autonomy. During the cold war it was far enough from the important theatres of Soviet-American rivalry to avoid taking sides. As Indian leaders then dabbled with socialism, explored friendships with other post-colonial states and found America pumping arms into Pakistan as a reward for its ruling generals’ “anti-Communism”, they grew disillusioned with the West. India was one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement that sought to form a third pole to East-West rivalries. It abhorred America’s involvement in Vietnam, and in 1971 was shocked by the Nixon administration’s fierce opposition to independence for Bangladesh. Later, India opposed brash American policies such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It also resented being punished for developing nuclear weapons even as China, which tested its atom bomb just ten years before India, was welcomed into the nuclear club. Only in the past decade has America distanced itself from Pakistan, and tried more actively to woo India.So, while India is indeed wary of China, it also bears a legacy of mistrust towards America. India’s establishment instinctively prefers the West, but its strategic thinkers caution that the country should avoid entangling alliances. Vast oceans separate countries such as America and Australia from China, they note, but with India it shares a long land border. China’s economy is now five times India’s; rather risky to signal to such a neighbour that India favours a “containment” strategy. Besides, India has a strong sense of itself as an emerging superpower. Until now, in the modern world, an underperforming economy has held it back from playing a bigger role. Given time and patience, though, India itself will become a powerful pole in a multipolar world.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19306
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 02 Jun 2018 15:16

Good move in cementing a deal with Indonesia for the port.
Indo-N has often reached out to us for mil. eqpt . which it required.Many moons ago it wanted us to overhaul its entire Sov. suppplied navy! Jakarta also mistrust Oz and would much prefer interacting with us.Therefore, the defence ties with Vietnam, Malaysia and S'pore - and possibly the Philippines in the future, would be of great value in countering Chinese misadventures in the IOR.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1552
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby g.sarkar » 03 Jun 2018 02:32

https://thediplomat.com/2018/05/india-u ... g-threats/
India-US-China: Aligning Interests or Managing Threats?
India’s pursuit of its national interests will be tested by how it manages its relationships with the U.S. and China.

By Monish Tourangbam and Pooja Bhatt
May 30, 2018
All eyes and ears will be tuned to India’s vision of the Indo-Pacific when Prime Minister Narendra Modi gives the keynote speech at the upcoming Shangri-La Dialogue next month in Singapore. The dialogue first convened in 2002 and soon became the flagship annual meeting for issues relating to security of the Asia-Pacific, later coinciding with the Obama-era Asia rebalancing strategy. However, the increasing salience of the Indo-Pacific as an emerging geopolitical construct, and the Trump administration’s embrace of the same, means that the Shangri-La Dialogue will also mirror this shift of focus from the Asia-Pacific to the larger Indo-Pacific. In terms of regional priorities for the United States, the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the National Defense Strategy (NDS) have been categorical in their emphasis on the Indo-Pacific region. From looking at India as a linchpin of the United States’ rebalancing strategy toward Asia-Pacific to the India-U.S. Joint Strategic Vision in the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean region during former President Barack Obama’s administration on to Washington’s embrace of the Indo-Pacific under President Donald Trump, the two countries have come a long way in terms of aligning their strategic visions. This strategic congruence has been seen in the pursuit of interoperability between the Indian and U.S. armed forces, including military-to-military exercises as well military equipment transfers that aim to augment India’s warfighting and deterrent capabilities.
Such developments in India-U.S. strategic cooperation have given rise to a certain unease in Beijing. This creates a difficult equation of competition and cooperation in the India-U.S.-China triangular dynamics. How New Delhi will manage the strategic fallout of its closer embrace of the United States in its relations with a neighboring China perhaps remains one of the most critical elements of India’s foreign policy.
India’s location itself demands that it defines its own narrative in aligning with the United States to manage China’s rise. China remains a proximate power and the U.S. a distant one. Although history has demonstrated that a distant power needs to be engaged to balance against a proximate power, relations with the latter should not be defined and determined by the former.
The intersecting geopolitical and geoeconomic spheres of India and China present opportunities for economic engagement but also create instances of “contestation” as seen in the Doklam standoff or the disagreements persisting over the nature of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) among several other issues in the past few years. While the threats perceived from a rising China, with an unhindered influence in the Indo-Pacific and more particularly in India’s neighborhood, are palpable, the economic opportunities from a rising China are also a reality. This is true not only for India, but many other countries in East and Southeast Asia, that see China’s aggression as a threat despite their economic interdependence. This is true even of the most pre-eminent country in the current global order, the United States. In fact, the emergence of a new great power relationship between the U.S. and China and the probability of a power condominium between the two has often been looked at with concern from New Delhi. Additionally, the long shared but unsettled territorial boundary between India and China persist as a major bone of contention that both countries are yet to find a common solution to.
.....
Gautam

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4362
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Neshant » 03 Jun 2018 02:59

Philip wrote:Good move in cementing a deal with Indonesia for the port.


Looking at the map, the Indonesian port looks pretty close to where India already has an island near Indira point.

Should not the port have been further down the straits near mainland Indonesia itself.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22667
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 03 Jun 2018 08:52

Neshant wrote:
Philip wrote:Good move in cementing a deal with Indonesia for the port.


Looking at the map, the Indonesian port looks pretty close to where India already has an island near Indira point.

Should not the port have been further down the straits near mainland Indonesia itself.

In fact, Sabang is ideal. IN will then become the guardian of entry/exit to/from Melaka Straits from both sides (Indira Point in the north & Sabang in south). Truly a choke point. The base at Changi should add to the teeth significantly especially because naval aviation assets like P8-I can also use it. Sabang also has naval airstation. We should work with Indonesia to get access to bases at Sunda & Lombok as well.

Access to a base in Vietnam should help too. INS Sahyadri, Shakti & Kamorta were there in Da Nang last week. Ms. Seetharaman is visiting Vietnam next week. IN is training the Vietnamese Navy personnel for a decade now and we are offering patrol boats to them for which a Line of Credit is opened. If we can get base facilities at Da Nang, overlooking Sanya, that would help too significantly.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4362
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Neshant » 03 Jun 2018 09:18

SSridhar wrote:
Neshant wrote:
Looking at the map, the Indonesian port looks pretty close to where India already has an island near Indira point.

Should not the port have been further down the straits near mainland Indonesia itself.

In fact, Sabang is ideal. IN will then become the guardian of entry/exit to/from Melaka Straits from both sides (Indira Point in the north & Sabang in south). Truly a choke point. The base at Changi should add to the teeth significantly especially because naval aviation assets like P8-I can also use it. Sabang also has naval airstation. We should work with Indonesia to get access to bases at Sunda & Lombok as well.

Access to a base in Vietnam should help too. INS Sahyadri, Shakti & Kamorta were there in Da Nang last week. Ms. Seetharaman is visiting Vietnam next week. IN is training the Vietnamese Navy personnel for a decade now and we are offering patrol boats to them for which a Line of Credit is opened. If we can get base facilities at Da Nang, overlooking Sanya, that would help too significantly.


Sounds like a great plan.
Effectively doing a "string of pearls" on the ones trying to do a string of pearls on us.
But its going to cost a pretty penny if these host countries don't shoulder at least part of the cost.
It has to be a joint security effort, not just India holding up the entire arch.

Those countries buying a few of our naval ships and other equipment would go some ways towards inter-operability and offsetting the expense.
South block needs to be proactive in proposing these plans to our friends in SE Asia.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 22667
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 05 Jun 2018 08:10

India seeks new security forum - Kallol Bhattacherjee, The Hindu
India on Monday urged for support from Russia, China, South Africa and Brazil to create a new security forum to counter terrorism and radicalisation.

Speaking at the BRICS Foreign Ministers meeting, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that the forum could be realised through an understanding among the National Security Advisors (NSAs) of the member countries of the grouping.


Common ground

“It is imperative now that the common ground reached in our NSAs’ meeting on setting up a BRICS security forum is implemented fully,” said Ms. Swaraj in a statement in the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Johannesberg.

Apart from the Indian External Affairs Minister, the meeting is being attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and South African Minister of International Affairs Lindiwe Sisulu.

Brazil is represented at the meeting by Vice-Foreign Minister Marcos Galvao.

The National Security Advisers of the BRICS member states have a dialogue mechanism to counter radicalisation, terrorism, money laundering and other international crimes.

Ms. Swaraj also emphasised the contribution of the BRICS countries in ensuring stability in a world faced with growing insecurity and said, “Our meeting today takes place at a time when multilateralism, international trade, and rules based world order face strong head-winds.”

Johannesburg meet

The statement from the Indian Minister came weeks before the Indian leadership’s meeting with the Russian and the Chinese leaders at the Qingdao summit of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the next BRICS summit in two months which will be held in Johannesburg.

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent meetings with President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping, India had expressed willingness to intensify work with the BRICS member- states to address pressing issues of collective concern.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5181
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 05 Jun 2018 09:22

Philip wrote:Good move in cementing a deal with Indonesia for the port.
Indo-N has often reached out to us for mil. eqpt . which it required.Many moons ago it wanted us to overhaul its entire Sov. suppplied navy! Jakarta also mistrust Oz and would much prefer interacting with us.Therefore, the defence ties with Vietnam, Malaysia and S'pore - and possibly the Philippines in the future, would be of great value in countering Chinese misadventures in the IOR.
Sabang seems to be part of the "Act East" policy. By itself, it may not be much but building these bridges is what will lead to better things. It is also a message that we are ready to act.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21535
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Austin » 05 Jun 2018 09:52

PM affirms India’s ‘strategic autonomy’

The speech by Mr. Modi, the first Indian Prime Minister to have accepted an invitation to address the Shangri-La dialogue, which draws Defence Ministers from the Asia-Pacific region each year, was awaited with much anticipation due to the timing of the conference. In the past year, India has increased its engagement with the ASEAN region, joined a quadrilateral grouping with the U.S., Japan and Australia for the Indo-Pacific, as well as reached out to China and Russia and will join the SCO grouping this month.

Amid India’s varied strategic moves, as well as the flux in the region, Mr. Modi’s speech was expected to clarify India’s position on the “Indo-Pacific” strategy which is often seen as a platform to contain China’s moves in the South China Sea.

However, Mr. Modi denied the Indo-Pacific was part of a strategy and called it a “natural” geographical region, placing the 10 countries of South East Asia (ASEAN) at the centre of the forum.

“India does not see the Indo-Pacific Region as a strategy or as a club of limited members. Nor as a grouping that seeks to dominate. And by no means do we consider it as directed against any country,” Mr. Modi said.

Referring specifically to relations between India and Russia, U.S., and China separately, Mr. Modi made it clear that he believed India, like Singapore didn’t stand “behind one power or the other.” “No other relationship of India has as many layers as our relations with China… We have displayed maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border,” he said about relations with Beijing.

Mr. Modi’s words were significant, days before another visit to China’s Qingdao city to attend the SCO summit, a visit which comes a few weeks after he travelled to Wuhan to meet President Xi Jinping.

“President Putin and I shared our views on the need for a strong multi-polar world order for dealing with the challenges of our times” said Mr. Modi, referring to his meeting with the Russian President in Sochi last month. “At the same time, India’s global strategic partnership with the United States has overcome the hesitations of history and continues to deepen across the extraordinary breadth of our relationship,” he added.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 49786
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 06 Jun 2018 22:24

X-post...
Vips wrote:Russia experts dominate National Security scene.

Dipankar Roy Chaudhri


The appointment of Ambassador to Russia Pankaj Saran as the Deputy National Security Adviser (NSA) -- a strong Russia hand -- reflects the growing number of Russophiles in the Modi government aimed at safeguarding strategic partnership and expanding the economic envelope.

Besides Saran, who is expected to return here in the near future, former Ambassador to Russia PS Raghavan, also credited with the growth in Indo-Russian ties, is convenor of the National Security Advisory Board that advises the Indian Prime Minister.

Saran, a 1982 batch IFS officer, fitted well into Raghavan’s shoes when he took over the high-profile job in 2016 as the two countries expanded strategic and economic partnership and consolidated energy links, according to Russia watchers. Both Saran and Raghavan are also well versed with the Russian language that had helped in giving momentum to the partnership. NSA AK Doval has been strong votary of Indo-Russian strategic partnership, notwithstanding his interest in Delhi’s engagements with with major powers. Doval played a crucial role in shaping the first Modi-Putin informal summit in Sochi amid US sanctions on defence purchases from Russia.

Since 2014, PM Modi has paid special attention on Russia to address the perceived drift in relations of the two countries. He had realised the importance of this relationship for economic development, defence and security. The Joint Statement of 2014 during the visit of President Putin was termed as ‘Druzhba-Dosti: A Vision for strengthening the Indian-Russian Partnership over the next decade’. He has collected an excellent team who have deep understanding Russian world view and its basic determinants of foreign policy and who can help in developing closer relations with Russia,” explained Dr S D Pradhan, former Deputy NSA.

“Ajit Doval the NSA, Pankaj Saran Dy NSA, PS Raghvan, Convenor of National Security Advisory Board are known Russian experts and have close links with the top policy makers of Russia.

The latter two have served as our Ambassadors to Russia. The other Deputy NSA Rajinder Khanna (former R &AW Chief) is an expert on Islamic terrorism and knows the Russian views on this issue. The former Deputy NSA Dr Arvind Gupta (ex-IFS) too is a Russia expert who now heads VIF an important think tank,” he added. The Russia experts are expected to guide the relationship through the turbulent period in international relations, and their presence reflects Delhi’s commitment to nurture special special ties with Moscow notwithstanding ties with other major powers, according to one of the persons quoted above. The challenge remains in pushing the economic envelope, he said.

In recent weeks, there has been a flurry of high-level visits to Moscow. While the Sochi Summit hogged headlines from substance to personal chemistry between the leaders, what largely went unnoticed were some of the other key visits to Russia by Indians. BJP general secretary and one of Modi’s key advisers Ram Madhav, for instance, visited Sochi to meet senior officials to discuss the Indo-Pacific construct among other issues. Cultural links were brought to the fore when ICCR chairman Vinay Sahasrabuddhe and other eminent scholars visited Russia.

jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby jaysimha » 15 Jun 2018 13:11

Shri T.C.A. Raghavan, IFS Officer(retd), former High Commissioner of India will talk on Indo-Pak relations(Past/Present/Future) in Delhi on 18th June at 04:00 PM
http://cgda.nic.in/adm/circular/Lecture-120618.pdf

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby JohnTitor » 16 Jun 2018 19:17

ShauryaT wrote:
SSridhar wrote:To continue the discussion,

India does not believe in 'Me First' approach: Sushma Swaraj
I just love our EAM. Since the days she became a young minister in the Morarji Desai government, she has done the nation proud.

I disagree. This attitude is fine at a personal level, not at a national level. This is not what Chanakya taught us.

This is the same "goody two shoes" that lost us the UNSC seat. At a national level, there are only permanent interests, not friends nor enemies.

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 227
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 16 Jun 2018 22:20

JohnTitor wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:I just love our EAM. Since the days she became a young minister in the Morarji Desai government, she has done the nation proud.

I disagree. This attitude is fine at a personal level, not at a national level. This is not what Chanakya taught us.
This is the same "goody two shoes" that lost us the UNSC seat. At a national level, there are only permanent interests, not friends nor enemies.

She is saying it does not mean she means it. The statement is directed at US. India is trying to counter US trade threats. Diplomatically , srategically and in every other way.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby JohnTitor » 17 Jun 2018 10:19

She need not say it either. Do you see China or the EU saying such drivel? Anyway, India plans to increase tariffs, so such talk is pointless. Such talk only exposes the immaturity of our politicians when it comes to geopolitics.

You do what needs to be done to counter the threat. Trump cares little for such niceties. On the other hand, they would get better results if they offered him a personal stake by way of his hotels or something, not that I'm saying that is the way forward but in terms of effectiveness it is better than spouting Vedas to adharmics.

BTW, 'me first' is the way. It has always been the way. Alliances are only needed in helping that. This "collective progress" is something that should be left behind with Nehru and Gandhi.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dhyana, Dileep, Lisa, navneeet and 16 guests