Indian Foreign Policy

[robin]

Can we believe these People?????????

[JE Menon]

They can run any psyops-shyops... They're getting jack on this front!!!

[Rye]

Robin wrote:

As kids we were told by our elders to beware of seasonal friends and maintain our integrity. I believe same thing applies to the country too. What steps can be taken so that our friends believe that we will be there in case of their need and not turn away?

A common mistake most people commit is try to extrapolate human relationships to interstate relationships. Respecting elders and other social niceties are behaviours associated with trust-based relationships.

There is no trust in international politics for real -- it is every state for itself, and there are no rules except what the state chooses to live by for the state's own reasons.

There are no friends or enemies -- in the final analysis, India is on its own just like every other country.

[svinayak]

BWeek is busy running its psyops urging India to stop engaging with Myanmar generals in the vague promise of global goodwill and support
for security council seat

http://businessweek.com/globalbiz/conte ... l+business

Why dont they have the same news item for China.

China wants to promote democracy in Burma.

[shyamd]

Mysterious visit of RAW chief and its impact
[quote]TGW

Ashok Chaturvedi, the chief of the RAW (Research and Analysis Wing)- India’s notorious intelligence agency recently had a secret chit chat with Nepal’s prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, Home Minister K.P. Sitaula and NC leader Dr. Shekhar Koirala, right in Kathmandu.

Chaturvedi, according to reports, had met the prime minister and some high ranking leaders of Nepali politics and chiefs of various security agencies during his four day stint in Nepal.

According to the Janadisha Weekly, Chaturvedi had sneaked into Kathmandu by Jet Airways, 14, December, 07 at 3:45 PM.

India’s outgoing ambassador to Nepal, Mr. Shiva Shankar Mukherjee too had arrived Kathmandu the same day but boarding a different air craft, says Nepali Patra Weekly dated 21, December, 07.

Mr. Madhav Kumar Nepal- the UML chief and Surya Bahadur Thapa-the RJP (Rastriya Janashakti Party) president too had a chance to meet with the RAW chief, say reports further.
During his meetings with various leaders in Nepal, Chaturvedi had told them to remain aware of the increasing Chinese influence in Nepali politics, adds Nepali Patra.
Chaturvedia had stayed at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kathmandu.

In the mean time, reports say that with the grand disclosure made by the “Nepal Weeklyâ€

[Adrija]

We're spending too much time on Botox bebe's pest-e-shaheedization .. here's soemthing else for the gurus to read

http://specials.rediff.com/yearend/2007 ... reign2.htm

Ensoi

[putnanja]

Mandarins head to missions

Washington, Jan. 28: Political appointees are making way for civil servants at key Indian diplomatic missions abroad with only slightly more than a year to go before the general elections.

Washington will shortly join Moscow and London, where political appointees of the UPA government have ended their tenures as heads of missions.

In New York, too, retired diplomat Nirupam Sen is expected to be replaced on April 1 by a serving officer of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS).

A search is on in the Prime Minister’s Office for a replacement for Ronen Sen, whose term as ambassador in Washington expires on March 31. Sen has already been on extension since his two-year contract as a political appointee expired in late summer in 2006.

The Manmohan Singh government had recalled him from retirement soon after it came to power and sent him to Washington as a political appointee.

The UPA had also similarly sent retired foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal and UN secretary-general’s representative in Timor-Leste, Kamalesh Sharma, as ambassador to Moscow and high commissioner to London respectively.

Like Sen, they were on extension. Sibal has already made way in Moscow for a serving IFS officer, Prabhat Shukla.

Sharma, who has been elected secretary-general of the Commonwealth, is in the process of being replaced by a serving officer, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, now ambassador in Kathmandu.

For several months now, Sen has not been accepting speaking engagements or other commitments here beyond the last week of March.

He has also been preparing the embassy staff here for a change, telling them that he would not accept another extension at the mission here.

Sen was reluctant to accept his second extension when it came early last year for personal reasons, but was persuaded by the Prime Minister and national security adviser M.K. Narayanan to stay on.

It is understood that Mukherjee is the only serving officer on whom there is agreement at the top in Delhi as a successor to Sen in Washington.

But it may be awkward for the Centre to change his posting only weeks after New Delhi received the agreement — clearance, in diplomatic parlance — to his nomination from the Court of St James.

Political appointees are usually reluctant to take up diplomatic jobs towards the end of a government’s tenure in case they have to leave if there is a change in New Delhi after a general election.

In the current political scenario in New Delhi, speculation about early polls has added to such reluctance.

However, a retired foreign secretary may be persuaded to succeed Sen. It will then be up to the appointee to meet opposition leaders and seek their support.

[sanjchopra]

How India can acquire great power status - Bharat Verma

Due to New Delhi's slavish use of 'carrot' since Independence, without any equilibrium with the 'stick', the great power potential of India lies in tatters. In fact it threatens to endanger the writ on its territory. Between Naxals in the Red Corridor, border states particularly Jammu and Kashmir [Images] and the Northeast, New Delhi's writ barely runs in fifty per cent of its territory. With the failure to govern within, there is an automatic rollback of influence of central and state governments towards their respective capitals.

This lopsided use of 'carrot' has emboldened neighboring countries like China, Nepal (Maoists), Pakistan, and Bangladesh to execute a sly rollback of the Indian Union on its borders through ingress, territorial claims, occupation of Indian territory, infiltration, export of Islamic terrorism and demographic assault. Simultaneous shrinking of influence without and within is sowing seeds of disintegration of the Union.

If only one element is used in the 'carrot and stick' policy, it creates an enormous imbalance and upheaval. This can easily be discerned in the illogical use of the 'stick' alone by Washington's neo-conservatives. Without balancing it with a 'carrot', it has created unprecedented turmoil for the western alliance, dented American aura, created a divide within, and sapped societal confidence.

India has clear potential of achieving great power status. Unlike the negative demographic young profile in its neighbourhood, it boasts of a highly skilled young population. Its geographical location and the size lend it the advantages of both, a continental as well as maritime power which, make it possible for New Delhi to impact and influence West Asia, Southeast Asia and the Central Asia.

However, this is only possible if instead of being an inward looking nation, New Delhi's footprints extend outwards. Inward looking entities tend to wither away as their influence shrinks. This in particular is true of India that faces a 14,000 km wall (on its land frontiers) of fundamentalist/ authoritarian regimes. Despite India's geographical location and human resources bestowing on it all the advantages that can develop it as an Asian hub of liberal values, a manufacturing gateway, and a research base for cutting edge technologies, it continues to waste its potential of achieving a great power status due to skewed policy making, indecision and inconsistency.

To be a great power, Indian aim should be to establish its preponderance over Asia. Broadly, this requires three decisive steps. First, set its house in order. Second, develop political, economic, military, and technological dominance in the vicinity. Third, create international alliances without forming a formal block, based on the age-old principal of 'enemy's enemy is a friend'.

New Delhi and the state capitals must ruthlessly endeavour to recover territories lost internally to Naxals; mafias in the crime corridor; and terrorists and insurgents in its borders areas. In other words, the government's writ and influence through transparent and fair governance must fan outwards to recover the lost territories within.

To recover internal territory from the non-state actors, New Delhi will have to learn to force development down the throat at gunpoint in Naxal affected and border areas. Rapid improvement of the infrastructure in border states through the private sector will in effect rupture the internal links with the external forces determined to subvert the Union. To achieve this policing has to be beefed up, modernised, well paid, just, firm, and apolitical. This is one institution that needs transformation in its entirety, if the waning writ of the state has to be restored.

Similarly, consolidate and integrate the Union instead of dividing and compartmentalising it for the sake of vote bank politics. It is amazing that in a globalised world, an Indian needs an inner line permit to visit certain parts of his own country. He is refused permission to buy property and settle down in various locations. But the Islamic terrorist from across the border freely parks himself in border areas, merrily changes the demography with impunity, and establishes terrorist training camps in Karnataka's forests! New Delhi fiddles while the Union continues to sink under the weight of Islamic terrorism and strident territorial claim by China.

An average Indian at heart is a capitalist -- a trader, a businessman, and an entrepreneur. His mantra simply is "What's in it for me?" This is one reason why the Indian community is the top money earner in the United States. Encourage his ability and dream to create individual wealth that transforms ultimately into a national asset. Understanding this societal characteristic by the government is paramount in ushering good governance.

The authoritarian regimes across our land borders have more in common with each other than a liberal India. In addition, the creeping Wahabism in Malaysia; the upsurge in fundamentalism in Thailand and Indonesia; and the possibility of West Asia being taken over by the Jehadis should trouble New Delhi. The emerging scenario will prove to be a boon to the authoritarian and expansionist China and increase its influence exponentially. Sixty years of doling out 'carrots' leaves India pretty much alone, with even Nepal increasingly falling into the hands of Maoists who are in cahoots with the Chinese.

Surrounded by an array of adversaries, therefore, the key question for New Delhi is how to 'outgun' them? How about developing a large 'stick'? Sure, that's the way out.

Let me spell out as to what is likely to happen if we do not. Beijing [Images] in shrewd moves to tie New Delhi in knots will continue to instigate and boost countries like Pakistan to subvert India. While China may not attack India initially, it will subvert our vicinity by gaining leverage over Bhutan and Nepal besides the other surrogates with whom it enjoys a special relationship already.

Finally, it will aim for the jugular -- the Northeast, and will be willing to share a portion of it with Bangladesh to end India's writ in its entirety beyond the Siliguri corridor. After that Bhutan and Nepal will be at its mercy.

If Beijing can gain its objectives through asymmetric warfare, then there is little need for an intelligent nation to wage conventional war. The Chinese call this a peaceful rise! Besides their expansionist outlook, the outward flow of influence also helps to divert attention from the brewing internal turmoil.

If we are farsighted, New Delhi can counter Beijing. The collapse of Pakistan is almost certain. India should ensure that China's proxy Pakistan disintegrates. This handicaps China by taking away one of its arms out of the two, the other being North Korea. The build up towards the collapse of Pakistan should see New Delhi initiating moves to deny Gawdar port facilities to China by leveraging existing its goodwill in Baluchistan. Simultaneously, it needs to work towards opening up of routes to Central Asia. Our connectivity and influence in that region is mandatory as historically all major invasions were mounted from there, as also a large portion of oil and gas from 2010 will be sourced from Central Asia and Iran.

To be a great power, India must also learn to shoulder its share of global responsibility. Be willing to station two divisions worth of troops in Afghanistan to defend millions of dollars of taxpayer's money being invested in reconstruction programme there. Otherwise the Taliban ultimately will walk away with the investment! Similarly in consultation with Bhutan, India must beef up its military presence there; otherwise the small steps of democracy that Thimpu is taking will be reversed by Beijing. Methodology to widen the narrow 8 to 21-km-wide and 200-km-long Siliguri corridor to at least 150 km on either side also needs to be worked out. The air force should attain lethal reach so that it is able to damage the new railway line to Tibet and thus deny the vital supply line in case of war.

To achieve strategic goals outlined, the preponderance of the Indian military power posturing outwards is a virtual necessity. To hone the wherewithal, rapid decision-making on multiple fronts needs to be activated simultaneously.

The Leftists recently betrayed Beijing's anxiety at ramifications of New Delhi signing the Indo-US nuclear deal. China is deeply concerned, as India will race ahead within the next 15 years, making itself the Asian hub of the cutting edge technologies. Some of the most modern and sensitive technologies in possession of the western world are today on offer to New Delhi and not to Beijing.

Therefore, India must sign the Indo-US nuclear deal. The deal's lateral spin offs to strengthen India's political, economic, and military positions in Asia are immense. It is absolutely vital for India to achieve dominance in Asia so that it can engage constructively with the totalitarian regimes in its vicinity without losing its poise and balance.

To enhance and modernise the military prowess, the annual defence budget should be pegged at 3.5 percent of the GDP for the next ten years. To heighten the stakes of foreign companies in India, increase the FDI limits to 49 percent from existing 26 percent. New Delhi can leverage this in reverse in the international community. To hasten the emergence of India as the leading Asian defence research and manufacturing hub, induct the Indian private sector to take up manufacturing of aircraft, warships, missiles etc. either individually, or in joint ventures with the multinationals.

The deteriorating standards of the military, both in terms of human resources and equipment, require to be reversed. In fact, the increasing security threats dictate that the military power apart from being lean and mean should be enhanced by another fifty per cent.

The shortfall of young officers who provide the cutting edge in war and the ageing profile of commanding officers can be checkmated by simple decisive measures. New Delhi should encourage short service commissioned officers tenure of seven years, with a gratuity packet at the end of Rs 25 lakhs, two years post graduation facility in any university in the world at government cost, guaranteed lateral induction with assured service seniority into police, para-military forces and the civil administration etc. This artificial shortage will disappear.

Further, encourage lateral induction of the top-heavy military into civil services and restore the original sanctity of the rank structure to reverse the ageing profile. It is also time that we created a strategic affairs cell in the defence ministry under the defence secretary, headed by a three-star general or equivalent with representatives of the three services and an experienced foreign service officer.

Once Washington removes the inherent flaws and establishes a balance between the 'stick and the carrot', America will recover a fair amount of lost ground within a few years because of its insulated geographical location, extraordinary resources, and the quality of governance it delivers to its citizens. New Delhi, unlike Washington is neither geographically placed in a secure environment nor its leadership has exhibited the genius of good governance.

To avoid heading the way Pakistan is going and to realise its full potential, India will have to learn to use the 'stick' in tandem with the 'carrot'. With unique geo-political opportunities that exist for India on the international chessboard due to it's inherent strengths in several areas, to reach for the sky should not be all that difficult!

[shyamd]

A $500,000 Exchange

In secret parleys with Iraqi abductors of our truckers, India got KGL to pay the ransom

SAIKAT DATTA
Explosive Content

* Following the kidnapping of three Indian truckers by Iraqi militants in 2004, the UPA government secretly negotiated with the abductors
* A three-man team was sent to Baghdad to talk to the kidnappers
* The three Indians were released in return for a ransom of $5,00,000
* Indian negotiators persuaded Kuwaiti Gulf Links (KGL), the company which employed the truckers, to pay this sum

***
In the aftermath of the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 to Kandahar in December 1999, the Indian government had decided it would never again negotiate with terrorists. In fact, it was amid much controversy that emissaries of the then NDA government had talked to the Taliban for the release of the 160 passengers aboard the craft. In exchange, India had to free three top militants in its custody: Masood Azhar, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh. Not just that, the hijackers themselves were given safe passage.

Since then, has India stuck to its avowed position of "no negotiations" with terrorists-turned-hijackers/kidnappers? Startling revelations in a new book—Anatomy of an Abduction by V. Sudarshan—detail how in August 2004, the UPA government negotiated with militants who had abducted three Indian truck drivers working in Iraq. Not just that, Delhi's interlocutors put diplomatic pressure and forced Kuwaiti Gulf Links (KGL), the company which employed the truckers, to cough up $5,00,000 as ransom. The negotiation and payoff were kept a closely-guarded secret.


The Indian truckers Tilak Raj, Sukhdev and Antaryami (L-R) were seen to be helping the US occupation in Iraq

The three-man Indian negotiating team, led by veteran diplomat Talmiz Ahmed, was sent to Baghdad on August 1, 2004. While the role of Ahmed and his associate Zikrur Rehman, a deputy secretary in the Union ministry of external affairs, have been acknowledged by the Indian government, the identity of the third team member or the part he played in the negotiations had been a secret so far. Sudarshan's book reveals he was an officer of the deputy director level in the Intelligence Bureau, known for his extensive knowledge of Islamic fundamentalism and hostage negotiations.

The abduction of the truckers took place just as the then foreign secretary Shashank was getting ready to hand over charge to Shyam Saran. "While there may be many views on the subject, it is a fact that the Government of India has to look after its citizens," Shashank told Outlook. "So the Indian team did what it had to do and it proved to be a major test of our diplomatic skills in a changing global scenario."

Accessing 'Top Secret' correspondence, Sudarshan in his book reveals that the abducted Indian truck drivers, along with the 6,000 other Indians in Iraq, were actually helping the American occupation of Iraq. Perhaps unwittingly, but they were putting their lives in peril when they were transporting electronic communications equipment meant for the American troops. During the negotiations, the Indian team realised that the Iraqi abductors were aware of the role played by the Indians in the US occupation.

Ahmed and his team had only a few contacts to start with when they reached Baghdad. The Iraqi militants were negotiating with KGL through local tribal leader Sheikh Duleimi. The latter was also in talks with Union minister of state for external affairs E. Ahamed's contact in Qatar, Sheikh Abderrehman Al Mahmoud, chief justice of the Sharia court. The entire negotiation centred around Duleimi-KGL and the abductors.But even after 15 days of negotiations, there was no breakthrough. The kidnappers, who had initially demanded $5 million as ransom, later scaled it down to $2.5 million. But KGL said it could not pay more than half a million. Duleimi slowly pulled out of the negotiations.
ANATOMY OF AN ABDUCTION
by V. Sudarshan
Penguin;
Pages 219;
Price: Rs 295


With no forward movement, Zikrur Rehman felt it would be a good idea to get through to the kidnappers using the help of local people. The diplomat, good with languages, had already picked up the local accent and could merge easily into the crowd on the streets of Baghdad. The best place to leave his calling card, he felt, would be at the local barber shop. He went there minus any security cover. The staff mistook him for a Yemenese and were surprised to learn that he was from India and that he had come to free three of his countrymen being held as hostages by the militant group, Holders of the Black Banner. Rehman let it be known that the Indian team in Baghdad was reasonable and willing to negotiate with the kidnappers.

The visit to the salon paid off. A few days later, a gentlemen calling himself Abu Walid and an advocate linked to the Iraqi resistance visited the Indian embassy and offered to be an intermediary between the Indian team and the abductors. Then followed hectic negotiations. The KGL management was persuaded to pay $5,00,000 as ransom. It also promised to discontinue its operations in Iraq. Finally, on September 1, a month-and-a-half after they were abducted, the hostages were released. According to Sudarshan, much of the credit for the successful negotiations goes to Rehman. His understanding of the language and culture of the Arab world proved to be crucial in the release of the truckers.

But should the Indian government have negotiated with the militants? Ask members of the intelligence community and they tell you that when it comes to saving lives, the government can deviate from its stated position. "While it is the policy of this government as well as others not to negotiate with terrorists, in a democracy, you have to look at all possible solutions and then play it by ear," former RAW chief A.S. Dulat told Outlook. In his foreword to the book, Dulat notes that "the book underscores the importance of low-profile yet flexible negotiations". Adds former IB chief Ajit Doval, who also played a crucial role in resolving the hostage crisis: "In statecraft, there can't be any fixed positions. In the end, if all ends well, it justifies the means."

The abducted truck drivers—Antaryami, Tilak Raj and Sukhdev—were lucky that the government chose to rescue them even though they were not high-value targets or vvips. It was minister E. Ahamed who took the initiative to secure the release of the three. "Look at it this way," says Dulat. "There are reports that the Lashkar was planning to kidnap Rahul Gandhi. God forbid, if that were to happen, wouldn't the government negotiate? By that logic, what's wrong in saving the lives of any Indian citizen?"

This doesn't stop detractors from saying that India should refrain from such negotiations since all it does is send the message that the state is soft and can be held to ransom. Cold logic, but not very useful when you have a Kandahar staring you in the face.

Talmiz Ahmed is the current Ambassador to the UAE.

[ramana]

I have mixed feelings on this matter. As the world globalizes there will be more instances of such incidents.

There is a big difference between this incident and IC 814. This incident is due to an insuregency in Iraq which is under US occupation despite whatever spin comes out of Duplicity. IC 814 was state sponsored terrorism using proxies. Ultimately TSP and its myriad agencies were at the bottom of the incident. The linkages are -Hijackers->TSP Jihadis->Taliban->ISI->TSP Govt. Here the linkages are different.

Until GOI develops military force as an option and does a trade study to determine whether such force is useful in securing the lives of the hostages and preventing future incidents, dealing with such kidnappers is the right thing to do.

Atleast hostages in Iraq wont get killed till the kidnappers exhaust the potential for ransom. However this wont occur in Taliban areas where the kidnappers are under ISI control for they will kill the hostages to prove their transitory power.

[Rudranathh]

EAM off to Brazil, S Africa to enhance IBSA strategic partnership

Feb 16, 2008

The External Affairs Minister, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is on way to Brazil and South Africa to further strengthen relations with these Countries.

The External Affairs Ministry spokesman told reporters that in the first leg of the six-day tour, Mr. Mukherjee will visit Brazilia for three days during which the two sides will review the progress of relationship upgraded to strategic partnership.

Focus of discussions is expected to be on agriculture, human resources development, science and technology, renewable and non-renewable energy. Cooperation in sports field has been of mutual interest to the two countries, with India particularly keen on roping in football coaches from Brazil. The football associations of the two countries are currently holding discussions in this regard.

Four agreements are expected to be signed between India and South Africa, which include visa-free travel for diplomats of the two countries and cooperation in agriculture, customs and science and technology.

The visit to the two nations will provide an opportunity for review of the progress of cooperation under India-Brazil-South Africa, IBSA framework, which assumes significance as the next Summit is to be held in New Delhi later this year. The minister has left New Delhi for Brazil this morning

[sum]

In secret parleys with Iraqi abductors of our truckers, India got KGL to pay the ransom

Most of the Nations do pay some ransom or other when getting their citizens freed in poor security/insurgency hit areas far away from their land....
Good to hear that the govt did all that it could despite the kidnapped having no "godfathers" connected with the govt(since force anyway was never a option in the prevailing lawlessness in Iraq).....

[Tilak]

Kosovo: India weighing options
Special Correspondent
Both sides need its support, says diplomat {Al-Hundi's spin}

[quote]NEW DELHI: With battle lines drawn over Kosovo declaring full independence from Serbia, India is actively considering its stand and appears tilted towards the view taken by Russia, China and some European countries.

“We have taken note of the unilateral declaration of Independence by Kosovo. There are several legal issues involved in this declaration. We are studying the evolving situation,â€

[Rye]

How can India support Kosovo's unilateral declaration of Independence while India has the Cashmere problem? (created by the very same people who are responsible for Kosovo's "unilateral declaration of independence").

[Rye]

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/293825.html

Reasonable C. Rajamohan article on Indian foreign policy in Africa.

[Rampy]

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/293825.html

Reasonable C. Rajamohan article on Indian foreign policy in Africa.

Do we have any thread that focuses on Indian's Policy towards ASEAN or Africa. Like focus on look east or engage Africa (Beside military focus). IFC thread is very broad but focus on Africa, SA and S America can help us IMO

Can we start one

[Rye]

There used to be a thread on India-Africa News and Discussion -- must still be there unless it got trashed and never restarted.

[Rampy]

There used to be a thread on India-Africa News and Discussion -- must still be there unless it got trashed and never restarted.

It looks it got trashed and never got started again. All our threads are focused on Indian Subcontinent. Think we should add few threads for Africa or S America etc

Just a thought

[ramana]

Pioneer reports 7 April, 2008

Provide inputs directly to PMO

Rahul Datta | New Delhi

Govt to tell Service brass; MoD, MEA views not enough

The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) wants to have a direct interface with the three Services for seeking opinion on critical national security issues. The need for such a mechanism was felt as the views of the Ministries of Defence and External Affairs are many a time divergent, thereby making it difficult to arrive at a correct decision.

Seen as a proposed major step to tone up national security management, the Government wants a direct channel between the Prime Minister's Office and the three Services.

A formal mechanism in this regard will enable the political decision makers to have informed opinion on a whole range of strategic issues like Pakistan, China and Defence relations with the US.

At present, the Ministries of Defence and External Affairs are the nodal agencies to advise the Prime Minister on key matters.

The views of the armed forces, under the present system, are always sought through proper channels through the Defence Ministry, sources said here on Monday.

Explaining the rationale behind such a proposal, they said the third opinion coming from the men in uniform will help the Government to study the issues in a more broad manner and then take the suitable decision. {This means there is a dichotomy between what Raksha Mantri babus are saying and what the Service chiefs are saying. Some thing is not right here if the babus filter military advice that the PMO needs to talk to the Service chiefs directly. Also the CDS was supposed to do this. But then INC is afraid of such primacy for the military due to their paranoia and never agreed to the CDS post. And IAF thinks that IA will use them as flying artillery! I guess the NDA system of direct induction has failed as these folks go to separate academies(IMA< IAF and IN) and becme siloized. The little mingling at Wellington, MHOW and NDC is wasted.}

The Services Headquarters, working under the overall supervision of the Defence Ministry, was recently sounded about the PMO thinking on having a formal mechanism for receiving inputs directly from them, they said.

The three Services including the Army, Navy and Air Force were now busy formulating broad guidelines for such a window to give informed opinion and were expected to submit them shortly to the Government.

{The Arun Singh GOM report after Kargil recommended the creation of CDS for this. Why another report? }

Given the strategic scenario in the Indian subcontinent and presence of nuclear powers including China and Pakistan in the neighbourhood, the Government, however, did not want to circumvent the established norms of seeking advise, sources clarified. The proposed mechanism would be in addition to the present system, they added.

{Where there any CBMS or Track Pee in place to prevent the Military being asked directly for the advice or was it part of piss process to keep the military out of loop. IOW was CDS not considered as part of piss process?}

In the wake of the Kargil War in 1999, the NDA Government carried out a detailed analysis of national security management including defence, internal security, intelligence gathering and border management under a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed the then Home Minister LK Advani.

The GOM strongly advocated setting up of a single window military advisor to the Prime Minister in the form of the institution of Chief of Defence Staff. However, the NDA and the UPA Governments were unable to garner political unanimity on the sensitive issue besides reservations from within the three services.

The proposed setting up of a direct channel between the PMO and the three Services was seen as measure to overcome the delay in having the Chief of Defence Staff, sources said adding several advanced countries were following this system of single window on military advise on security matters.

Direct link

• - Centre wants a direct channel between the PMO and the three Services
  
  - The move will tone up national security management
  
  - It will enable decision makers to have informed opinion on a whole range of strategic issues like Pakistan, China and Defence relations with the US
  
  - At present, the Ministries of Defence and External Affairs are the nodal agencies to advise the Prime Minister on key matters
  
  - Views of armed forces are always sought through Defence Ministry

So in other words sdue to political lack of consensus and narrow survival fears and inter servcie rivalry the nation was deprived of the post of CDS. and this is a backdoor inefficient way to impelemnt the CDS.

And its great to be a source in GOi for one can say anyting and never get questioned and any wisdom from source gets printed verbatim! Unaccountable power!

[putnanja]

So the MoD babus make their own policies and may diverge from the services pov ?? Will be interesting to see how the new policy will play out when PMO receives divergent views from the services and MoD!!

Doesn't the NSA meet with the service chiefs directly?

[Rye]

Some government we have...no coordination and petty political rivalry even in matters of life and death for the country. worthless Q#^$@^%s.

[ramana]

Some government we have...no coordination and petty political rivalry even in matters of life and death for the country. worthless Q#^$@^%s.

No blame the services also. The IAF doesnt want the IA to be the CDS and the IA will never get a broad view of the national security than a batallion commander's eye view. Gen. Sunderji was too short a period.
The IN is too small to make an impact. Cant blame the politicians alone. Then there are the babus still fighting Lord Curzon's feud with Lord Kitchner.
Total dysfunctional govt.

I blame the NDA for not overruling the babus' advice and formalising the CDS system.

[satya]

Just how long will it take for three services to have senior officers who can fill in the shoes of CDS ? Are we considering CDS as a stand alone issue where only the senior hiearchy of the tri-services be involved and let the junior level officers continue as b4 in their training ?

or
at junior levels too if so then at wht level will officers of tri-services be provided courses/training to understand their sister services operational & doctrinal issues and subsequent usage under joint command ?

[Kalantak]

G-8: India holds consultations with "outreach" countries

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/00 ... 211840.htm
Beijing

India and four other "outreach countries" on Monday held consultations to formulate their stand on key issues pertaining to economic, trade and climate change ahead of the G-8 meeting in Japan in July.

Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon attended a preparatory meeting in this regard here.

Besides India, top officials from host China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa participated in the meeting, a multilateral consultation on economic and trade issues and climate change, among others, that the major developing nations plan to take up at the G-8 meeting to be held at Japan's northern island of Hokkaido Tayako.

The "outreach countries" are invited when the G-8, an exclusive club of rich nations comprising the US, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia, meets.

The previous G-8 meeting was held in Germany which would pass on the Presidency to Japan at the upcoming summit.

[putnanja]

‘Independent’ foreign policy cannot be captive to domestic politics.

[Karan Dixit]

How can India support Kosovo's unilateral declaration of Independence while India has the Cashmere problem? (created by the very same people who are responsible for Kosovo's "unilateral declaration of independence").

I do not support Kosovo breaking away from Serbia and it has nothing to do with Cashmere.

Serbia regards India as a friend. So, as a friend, India tends to express support for integrity of Serbia. Besides, Serbia's stance is moral. At this stage, I frankly do not see any benefit for USA in splitting Serbia.

[satya]

Kevin Rudd: All The Way With China

B. Raman
"A puzzling question for the Chinese is: How can India put all its strategic policy eggs in the baskets of three sunset leaders, namely, President George Bush, who will be out next year, Mr. John Howard of Australia, who may be out by the end of this year, and Mr. Shinzo Abe of Japan (he is already out) ? A convergence of views and interests with these sunset leaders will be ephemeral and of uncertain benefit to India and its people, whereas any convergence with the Chinese leadership would be durable and of definite benefit to India and its people. So, it is said. " ---Extract from my article titled "Seeing China From Chengdu" of September 19,2007, available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers ... r2381.html



Mr.John Howard, the previous Australian Prime Minister, is out after he and his Liberal/National coalition were defeated in the elections held on November 24,2007 . The policy-makers of other countries, including China, knew that Mr. Howard's days were numbered and that they should not put their policy eggs in his basket. They waited for the Australian elections before undertaking any major policy initiative. When Mr. Kevin Rudd of the Australian Labour Party, succeeded Mr. Howard as the Prime Minister and changed the main contours of Australia's foreign policy, they were not taken by surprise.

2. Indian policy-makers, whose decisions are influenced more by wishful thinking than by hard ground realities, rushed into one initiative after another without waiting for new leaders to emerge in the US, Japan and Australia. They embraced the proposal for a so-called concert of democracies involving India, the US, Japan and Mr. Howard's Australia. They engaged in nuclear castle-building in the air in the fond expectation that Mr. Howard's Australia will support the lifting of restrictions on nuclear trade with India by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) when the Indo-US agreement on civilian nuclear co-operation comes up before it and that it would sell uranium to India as it has been selling to China. They joined the five-power naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal in September,2007, involving the navies of India, the US, Howard's Australia, Singapore and Japan.

3. All their big-power castle-building in the air has come down with a crash after Mr. Kevin Rudd took over as the new Australian Prime Minister. One of his first decisions after taking over as the Prime Minister was that Australia would not sell uranium to India. This decision was publicly announced. Another decision being talked about, but not yet publicly announced was that Australia would not support India in the NSG.

4. His second major decision was that Australia would not participate in the concert of democracies and in any other arrangement which might create in China concerns that it was being encircled. That means, no more Australian participation in joint naval exercises which might cause concern in Beijing.

5. His third major decision was to undertake an 18-day visit to countries considered by him as important to Australian interests in order to explain the policies of his Government. Japan and India were not in the list of countries chosen by him. Subsequently, he and his advisers tried to soothen Japanese sensitivities by stressing that the exclusion of Japan from this list did not mean any down-grading of Japan's importance for Australia.

6.China, China, China, China and more of China was the recurring theme of his speeches in the countries visited by Mr. Rudd, who had spent nearly eight years as an Australian diplomat in Beijing and reportedly speaks the Chinese language fluently. The joke in the English-speaking countries visited by him was that he seemed to be more confident in the Chinese language than in English. His English language is as incomprehensible as the sudden turns in Australian foreign policy introduced by him.

7. The only country not surprised by the Australian foreign policy volte face caused by him is China. It had closely studied him during his long years in Beijing. It had correctly assessed his fascination for China and his seeming contempt for India. His indifference to India was apparent during his first overseas tour. Wherever he spoke, his preoccupation was with Australia's relations with the US and China. Hardly any reference to India.

8. Though there are indications that he would favour India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council and joining the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) organisation and that he might visit India later this year, he does not envisage any role for India in any new security infrastructure for the Asia-Pacific region. His poor opinion of the ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the ASEAN plus three, the East Asia Summit and the APEC was obvious. During his interaction with a select audience in the Brookings Institution of Washington DC on March 31,2008, he indicated his preference for the six-power group----of which China is a member and India is not--- which has been negotiating with North Korea on the nuclear issue being expanded to constitute the hard core of any new security infrastructure for the region.

9. In his interactions at the Brookings, he sought "common ground" between China and the international community in a bid to make the Asian giant a "responsible stakeholder" contributing to a "harmonious" global and regional order. China has always welcomed the emergence of India as a major Asian power, but one rung below it---- not on par with China. Bejing looks upon China as an emerging world power on par with the US and India only as an emerging Asian power on par with Japan. Mr. Rudd seems to agree with this perspective.

10. It has been reported that during his visit to Washington DC, President Bush could not succeed in making Mr. Rudd agree to support the nuclear agreement with India in the NSG. If true, this would put an end to India's hopes of having the NSG restrictions on nuclear trade with India lifted before the end of the term of Mr. Bush.
11. India's action in welcoming a stop-over by the Iranian President Mr. Mahmud Ahmadinejad at New Delhi on his way back to Teheran after a visit to Colombo later this month and New Delhi's strong rebuttal of the remarks of a US State Department spokesperson on the stop-over are a clear indication that New Delhi has come to terms with the ground realities and is trying to restore the status quo ante in India's foreign policy making before the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's visit to the US in July,2005, when the nuclear deal was signed. Since then, there have been major distortions in our foreign policy in favour of the US. Are we seeing the beginning of the end of at least some of these distortions?

[Kalantak]

Security Council: Chile backs India
Apr 23, 2008
SANTIAGO

“India’s time has come,â€

[vsudhir]

Soon, BJP to lay bare its revised ‘foreign policy’

[tejas]

I have neither forgiven nor forgotten the Australian govt's shrill, condescending and demeaning lectures to India following the '98 tests.

This coming from a half-pint country that allowed the United Queendom to test nuclear weapons on its soil. They also virtually buzzed the INS Delhi with a recon. plane during or just after its sea trials.

I remember posting back in '98 that India should have told those descendents of British felons where to get off. If Australia's Manchurian candidate does not want to sell India uranium, thats bad enough. If he de facto vetoes fuel supply to India at the NSG (assuming the moribund nuclear deal goes thru), there should be hell to pay.

Unfortunately due to decades of anemic economic growth, India is not yet in a position to look the U.S. in the eye and not blink. However, pygmy countries like Australia are another matter.

All trade with Australia should stop. Australian corporations should not be allowed to do business or invest in India. The Indian ambassador( I guess its High Comissionor) should be permanently withdrawn for consultations.

If we can't tell Australia to get screwed, we should hang our heads in shame.

[ramana]

Pioneer, 1 May 2008

I thought CP Bhambri was INC supporter!

UPA's American dream

India has never been so divided on foreign policy, writes CP Bhambhri

On April 23, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee assured the country that the proposed India-US nuclear deal will soon be placed before Parliament for full discussion. Mr Mukherjee said, "Before we go for its ratification in the American Congress, we will come to Parliament to take the sense of the House even though there is no provision in the Constitution that stands in our way."

Mr Mukherjee's statement reveals his incapacity to pilot the nuclear deal because of political opposition in the country. The Congress leadership has to be blamed for its failure to carry conviction with major political parties about the correctness of its foreign policy. It is for the first time since independence that the Congress leadership has divided the country on foreign policy. After all, India's foreign policy between 1947 and 2004 was based on national consensus.

A few facts may be mentioned to substantiate the argument that the Congress-led UPA Government will go out of office with a baggage of failed foreign policy initiatives. The Congress leadership has been proved bankrupt for its failure to understand the public and political mood within the country, especially while dealing with the US. The Communists have consistently stated that they will "withdraw their outside support" to the UPA Government if India's sovereignty was "mortgaged" to the Americans. The BJP, with the strength of 138 Lok Sabha MPs, too, has distanced itself from the UPA Government's proposed nuclear deal. The BJP has an apprehension that by supporting the India-US nuclear deal, Indians will lose their sovereign right to conduct nuclear test in future.

Why does the Congress continue with the pro-American policy despite such public and political opposition? The Congress's non-responsive attitude towards its political allies and opponents cannot be attributed to its arrogance of power or because of its lack of experience to manage a coalition Government. The explanation has to be culled from the inside story of the present Congress leadership. A section of Congress leadership is neither interested nor does it understand the changing complexities of global situation in the 21st century. This section represents courtiers and sycophants who wield power within the Congress by repeatedly proclaiming their loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family. Another section within the present Congress leadership is ideologically committed to the policy of integration of Indian economy, polity and society with the advanced centres of capitalism. This group looks towards the US for economic development and strategic security alliances for India. It is because of these two groups that is shaping the UPA's foreign policy.

The above narrative suggests that the Congress has an active group within the party that looks towards the US for the protection and promotion of India's national interests. Ironically, this group is supported by Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Unfortunately for the Congress, the country thinks differently and it is because of public mood that Mr Mukherjee had to reluctantly come out with a public statement on April 22 that "Iran's nuclear programme is subject to verification by the IAEA" alone, and not by any other country.

It is well known that the US has been interfering in India's foreign affairs, particularly its policy towards Iran. The proposal for a gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan did not find favour with the Americans and they had publicly asked Indians not to enter into any such agreement with Iran. The American logic is that the US's enemies have to be opposed by India, its 'strategic partner'. Unfortunately for the Congress, the country is in no mood to accept American dictations on foreign policy.

The Congress will be leaving the office with a baggage of failed foreign policy, and the country will have to take several steps to undo the damage done by the UPA Government's misadventures. Besides, the Congress has no one else except itself to blame for following a disastrous foreign policy because it ignored the dissenting voices from both within the party and the country.

And some of our members are vilified as conspiracy theorists when they were first of the block in diagonizing what ails the UPA!

Hats off to the one who first said this long ago.

[svinayak]

Another section within the present Congress leadership is ideologically committed to the policy of integration of Indian economy, polity and society with the advanced centres of capitalism. This group looks towards the US for economic development and strategic security alliances for India. It is because of these two groups that is shaping the UPA's foreign policy.

This section of the congress interacts with the counter part NRI group in the US. They are unable to get enough political support for their policies.

This group has built the relationship with these think tanks

Think tanks and policy institutes engage a resurgent India

More than a hundred years later, the Rockefeller Foundation-funded Asia Society is returning the favour by emerging as a platform advocating robust Indo-US ties. The good news is that the US is showing the way of lobbying a resurgent India and other countries are following the trend.

Why is Malyalam Manorama is so keyed to these think tanks. Is there a EJ connection to this relationship in US.

[Avinash R]

Bilateral trade between India-Germany growing
13 May 2008

CHENNAI: The bilateral trade between Germany and India is poised to grow at a rate of over 30 per cent annually in the coming years even as major German automobile and aviation companies are planning investments in India.

"The bilateral trade between the two countries, which is at present 13 billion Euro, will scale new heights in the coming years. Major German companies, which included Lufthansa, are planning more investments in India," Indo-German Chamber of Commerce Director General Bernhard Steinruecke said on the sidelines of a convocation ceremony of Indo-German Training Centre here.

He said apart from German automotive and auto component companies, which had already made considerable investment in India, other German insurance and banking companies would soon come to India to cash in on the economic boom witnessed in the country.

Earlier, addressing the graduates, Steinruecke said the Indo-German Training Centre would open another branch in Bangalore to cater to the large number of German companies in the region.

He said they would also open a Technical Training Institute in Pune, which is one of the major industrial hubs in India.

[ShauryaT]

Failing grade on foreign policy - Bharat Karnad

As the UPA government heads into what could be its terminal year, it’s time to grade its chief’s performance.....

Economists make bad prime ministers: they seem to lack the strategic sense of professional politicians.....

If the record of Singh and his counterpart Shaukat Aziz in Pakistan is anything to go by, economists make bad prime ministers, primarily because they seem to lack the basic strategic good sense that professional politicians more readily display. ...

There you go. Some will forever be biased against economists....

[Rkam]

Subcontinental drift
Our inept efforts at courting India seem to ignore a fundamental fact: We need them more than they need us
KEN HUNT

From Friday's Globe and Mail

May 30, 2008 at 7:00 AM EDT

On May 23, 1914, the steamer Komagata Maru arrived in Vancouver after a seven-week journey. On board were 12 Hindus, 24 Muslims and 340 Sikhs, many of them veterans of the British Indian Army who believed they had the right to settle anywhere within the Empire they'd helped defend. The Province called their arrival a "Hindu invasion," and B.C. Premier Richard McBride ordered the ship barred from docking, citing "the necessity of keeping this a white man's country." After a two-month standoff, the Maru was turned back. In Calcutta, British officials imprisoned the passengers. When they resisted, 29 were shot.

Canada wouldn't fully open its doors to immigrants from South Asia until 1967. In the two generations since, however, the Indo-Canadian population has made a major mark in this country. From Ujjal Dosanjh to Rohinton Mistry, Deepa Mehta to real-estate mogul Rai Sahi, Indo-Canadians have reached the top in every walk of life. In 2006, Canadians of South Asian heritage became our largest visible minority group, overtaking Chinese-Canadians for the first time. Today, more than 1.2 million South Asians live in Canada, 80% of them of Indian background; 700,000 reside in the Toronto area alone.

Yet, despite this thriving expat community, Canada's economic relationship with the subcontinent remains vastly underdeveloped. In 2006, bilateral trade with India reached a record level of $3.6 billion. Trade with China that same year was $42.6 billion. Paul Evans, co-CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation, a think tank on Canada-Asia issues, puts it succinctly: "We do more trade with China in a month than we do with India in a year." This situation is especially disturbing given India's growing importance on the world economic scene. Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2040, the Indian economy will grow to $40 trillion a year, and that by 2050 it will overtake the U.S. economy in size. Considering Canada's ethnic ties with India, the widespread use of English there, our common legal system and membership in the Commonwealth, India should be one of our most important economic partners. But while the Harper government pays lip service to developing our relationship with India, it's missing the point on the role we should play in that country's future.

Following independence, India didn't get off to a good start economically. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, looked to the Soviet Union for economic advice, with predictable results. Under a system that became known as the "Licence Raj," a vast bureaucracy controlled every aspect of the Indian economy, stifling innovation and growth. Nehru once told the industrialist J.R.D. Tata, "Never speak to me of profit. It is a dirty word." It wasn't until 1991 that a balance-of-payments crisis forced massive reforms on the Indian economy. Though the country has yet to catch up to China's growth rate, it's now tearing ahead at a blistering pace; GDP was up 9.6% in 2007. Indian companies such as IT giant Wipro Technologies are already world-class, and J.R.D.'s nephew Ratan Tata has grown the family business into a $30-billion-a-year concern that's been buying up such global brands as Tetley and Jaguar.

Lately, Canadian politicians have awakened to India's potential. Last year, after finalizing an investment protection agreement with India, Trade Minister David Emerson called for negotiations to start on a free trade deal. According to Paul Evans, though, this is the wrong approach. "It is not feasible, or our best option at this point," he says. "The regulatory environment [in India] is still a jungle within a jungle." In fact, throughout his extensive travels there, Evans hasn't met a single government official who takes the idea of a free trade agreement with Canada seriously. Tariffs, particularly in India's agricultural sector, remain high, and India simply doesn't see the advantage in offering Canada unfettered access to its markets. Canada is India's 22nd-largest trading partner, and New Delhi officials "don't see small and middle powers like Canada as important to a rising India," says Evans.

Our second-class status in the Asian giant's eyes has not been helped by the bungling of the Air India affair, Canada's convoluted visa process for business-class visitors and, most importantly, what Evans calls the "sine qua non of our relationship" with the country: Canada's failure to accept the U.S.-India nuclear deal and to actively co-operate with India on the future of its energy plan. While these are issues we need to address, the most important thing we can do to gain real leverage is to invest more in the Indian economy. India took in $9.5 billion in foreign direct investment in 2006; Canada contributed a mere $327 million of that. By comparison, we invested over $4 billion in Mexico and $1.8 billion in the Dominican Republic. At $972 million, our investment in Thailand is three times greater than in India. Out of all the countries in the world, India ranked 45th as a target for Canadian capital. If the Harper government really wants to get closer to India, it is investment, not trade, that has to be our focus.

For its own good, Canada has to recognize that India is more important to us than we are to them. Only when we start to act accordingly will we be able to make significant gains. Over 90 years ago, the Komagata Maru sat in English Bay for two months waiting for Canada's acceptance. We can't even imagine how much we lost because of our bad decisions then. This time, if we don't move fast, Canada might miss out on one of the biggest booms in history.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... rnational/

[abhischekcc]

Failing grade on foreign policy - Bharat Karnad

As the UPA government heads into what could be its terminal year, it’s time to grade its chief’s performance.....

Economists make bad prime ministers: they seem to lack the strategic sense of professional politicians.....

If the record of Singh and his counterpart Shaukat Aziz in Pakistan is anything to go by, economists make bad prime ministers, primarily because they seem to lack the basic strategic good sense that professional politicians more readily display. ...

There you go. Some will forever be biased against economists....

It is gratifying to note that BK and I share a personal rancidity against the PM.

I always liked BK.

----------------

Guys, please read the following statement of MMS in light of what we know about him (quoting from memory):

People don't realize this, but the external environment has never been more conducive to India's development.

It should not be hard to figure out now what he refers to as the external enviroment.

And that begets the question - if the external factor is conducive now, why was it not conducive earlier?

[ramana]

Interesting op-ed

Latha Jishnu: Two pipelines too far

[Sanku]

Soon, BJP to lay bare its revised ‘foreign policy’

There you go; some sensible plain speak. It seems that BJP has full time appartchicks for cogging from BRF

Reorient foreign policy, says BJP

Reorient foreign policy, says BJP

Kumar Uttam | New Delhi

Focus on threats from China, Bangladesh

The Bharatiya Janata Party's foreign policy has got a new orientation - that is not obsessed with Pakistan and the United States and, instead, looks at the "real and the most serious" threat from China and Bangladesh.

The BJP's national executive that began its two-day brain storming session in the national Capital from Sunday saw many senior party leaders joining the demand for a rethink on the country's foreign policy that takes challenges from "invading" China in the north and "infiltrating" Bangladesh in the east more serious than the threat from Pakistan on the other side.

The discussions on the issue remained inconclusive on Sunday, as some leaders wanted more changes in the party's resolution on foreign affairs so that it sent strong signals to the neighbouring countries. A resolution would be passed and released on Monday.

Party leaders were disturbed not only with China's consistent claim on Indian land but also with setting up of submarine bases in countries neighbouring India (to encircle the country) and the railway line in Tibet.

Recently, China rejected the formula of settling border dispute "without disturbing the settled populations". This could have serious implications on their claim on Tawang valley in Arunachal Pradesh.

Senior leaders like Arun Shourie and Yashwant Sinha were critical of the UPA that was behaving in a cowardly manner in the face of the Chinese provocations and lacking the firmness that the situation calls for.

In the main opposition's view, the role of the Communist allies of the Government, who have been consistently showing their commitment towards China either through their words or acts, should also come under the scanner. The party is also disturbed with the Maoists' victory in neighbouring Nepal. More so, when Chinese influence on Maoists is no more a secret.

"China while pumping money in South America, Africa and neighbourhood was trying to buy the loyalty of the countries that were allies of India in the Non-Aligned Movement. We should wake up to this," a senior leader pointed out. The UPA Government also came in for severe criticism from the BJP for their "silence" on Chinese aggression on Tibet and the "over-enthusiasm" during Olympic torch run in Delhi.

There was a detailed discussion on the problem that illegal immigration from Bangladesh posed to the country. Party leaders were of the opinion that the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh should be dealt with an iron fist in the backdrop of the revelation that they have a network with terror outfits and having been providing logistic support to the terrorists in carrying out attacks on India.

"Their (illegal immigrants) numbers have increased manifold in Assam. Fencing of the entire porous border with Bangladesh should be done. Migrants should be stopped from entering into out country at all cost," another leader said.

There was unanimity on the issue that the Government has failed in "detecting and deporting" such elements who have been carrying out a "war against India from the soil of our country".

The BJP leaders were of the view that the party's resolution and its foreign policies should take a strong note of all these facts and make sure that the challenges from China and Bangladesh were thwarted at all costs, when it comes to power at the Centre.

[nkumar]

BJP's critique of UPA's foreign policy, taken from bjp.org:

The National Executive of the BJP charges the UPA with gross dereliction of its duty in addressing the foreign policy and national security challenges to the country, meriting only one description: disastrous. Critical errors of earlier Congress governments, as in Jammu and Kashmir; Tibet; the NE of India, Ladakh or the IPKF continue to shackle our options and to burden our policies. On top of which the country has to now carry the consequences of these error ridden years of the UPA.

The BJP holds that the UPA, during its 4 years in office has demonstrated only one trait: an unequalled capacity to mis-govern; to become motionlessness when required to act; to be devoid of policy when confronted by challenges to our national interests, national security or national values. During the last four years of this unrivalled misgovernance, the UPA, by partnering with insurgents has shattered internal order; by soft pedaling terrorist threats it has destroyed the criminal justice system of the country; it has supinely acquiesced in the spread of unprecedented disorder in our immediate and near neighbourhood; and diminished the country’s impress on matters of global and national import.

It is the BJP’s charge that the union government has been derelict of its duties; violative of its oath of office to safeguard the country’s interests; and has abdicated its responsibility by outsourcing its foreign and security polices to the Communists.

Indo - Nepal

The BJP expresses its satisfaction about the recent elections in Nepal, we had simultaneously underscored the need for great restraint in the utterances and conduct of the CPN (M) as they had only about a third of the popular vote and that, too, obtained through intimidation. It is important that unity of policy and action, of all the democratic forces in Nepal be maintained. Stability, progress and peace in Nepal is a regional imperative, as important for Nepal as for India.

The BJP expects the UPA to immediately clarify where the Government of India stands on the many questions that Nepal is now confronted with. A reiteration of India’s multifaced and close relations with Nepal, an historically established verity and a current reality will by itself not suffice, what is needed here is a clear statement of policy and intent. Or is the PM not a free agent in this context as well?

Pakistan

The BJP welcomes the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, we express our fraternal accord with the people of Pakistan in their aspirations for a peaceful social and political order, a thriving economy and mutually beneficial relations with India. We find it necessary to voice our concern at some of the statements of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of Pakistan on the issue of J & K, thus displaying an inflexible approach. We do also express our concern at the recent incidents of Cross-LOC firing in Samba, Meandhar or Tangdhar regions of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. The LOC ceasefire, first initiated by the BJP led NDA must be maintained and without violation. The BJP also expresses its continuing concern about the menace of spreading terrorism in the entire region. This has to end as it is the principal deterrent to normalcy and accord. We would like to remind of the commitment made in the statement issued on January 6, 2004 during the visit of Prime Minister Vajpayee to Islamabad, that Pakistan’s territory, or territory under its control, will not be used for any violence against India. The BJP stands by this statement.

What however, most disturb are PM Dr. Manmohan Singh’s views: he has once again muddied the waters by characteristically unfocussed and tangential comments when recently he judged that the latest terrorist attacks and bomb blasts in Jaipur were actually not against the citizens of Jaipur but aimed at damaging Indo-Pak relations. Then in what category does he place the Samba, and Tangdhar firings?

Would the PM please elaborate and explain what he means by such delphic utterances. It is our right to know.

Bangladesh

The BJP demands that UPA government makes clear to the regime in Bangladesh that unchecked, unhindered and illegal infiltration into India will have to stop. India is not a ‘serai’ of convenience. What must also cease is providing shelter to terrorists/insurgents from India in Bangladesh.

The recently witnessed proliferation in the terrorist activities of ‘Bangladeshi groups’ in India, is an unfriendly act on the part of that country. The UPA must make this absolutely clear to the regime in Dhaka.

India – China and the UPA

The BJP urges the country to atleast now recognize a stark reality, whether in the context of India-China relations or in other respects, that the UPA is not a free agent; having mortgaged its thinking and policy determinations and implementation to the CPM, it can not safeguard or preserve India’s national interests.

The BJP stands for and is committed to cooperative, mutually beneficial and progressively evolving relations with the PRC. The issue of a long, unsettled border is a reality, it needs to be resolved peacefully. In which context we must recognize that PRC will transform its newly acquired economic progress into military might. To illustrate are the examples of a recent upgradation of China’s missile base just 1900 km NE of New Delhi, in the province of Qinghai, or the development of new solid-fuelled missiles, or establishing almost 60 missile launch sites in Tibet, and of course China’s new nuclear submarine base on Hainan island.

In the context of recent developments in Sikkim the BJP further demands that the UPA government must explain:

(a) what the details of the recent claims of the PRC on the geographical feature called ‘Finger’ in Sikkim are; and

(b) what is the government’s assessment of the rationale and timing of such a claim by the PRC?

The craven response of the UPA Government to the audacity of China’s claims over Arunachal Pradesh, and its repetitions; to the continuing incursions of Chinese troops into our territory in Ladakh and the North-east; to such extreme diplomatic snubs as summoning our Ambassador at 2 am, whereafter, the Government’s craven response to all these, endangers India – for it tempts China. That temptation is compounded by the slavish attitude that the UPA Government has repeatedly demonstrated to China e.g. in handling the Olympic torch matter and by the way it is trying to muzzle His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s voice.

The BJP demands that the Government desist from heaping further humiliations on the country; that it immediately speed up the construction of infrastructure that our forces need for repulsing foreign troops in the Northeast, in particular in Arunachal and Sikkim; that, as India’s security is inextricably entwined with what happens in Tibet and because of the civilizational ties that our country has had with them, the Government of India must come out clearly on the side of the people of Tibet in this hour of their oppression and trial.

The Congress Party, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and this entire ensemble of UPA must understand that office, chair and ministerial prerogatives cannot be treated as more important than our country’s honour, prestige, our territorial integrity and the preservation of our nation’s security interests.

Indo-Russia

During the NDA years, Indo-Russian relations were strengthened. The UPA has allowed what is India’s most enduring ‘strategic partnership’ to stagnate and to operate as if India’s international relations can be made uni-directional. This is tragic, since India and Russia have long held convergent views on several pressing issues facing the international community – whether economic, geo-political or ecological. This relationship must not be permitted to drift.

Indo-US

The BJP demands that the UPA now ended this charade on the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement. We are daily offered tantalizing statements by the PM; somewhat more realistic ones by the EAM; and unambiguous rejection of the Congress stand by various constituents of the UPA. Why plead with the BJP then, set your own house in order, we say.

Because, the Congress can, on its own, resolve this issue simply by taking a stand: ‘for or against’; why does it not do so? Instead the PM has now taken to rather piteously citing the examples of recent statements by people outside the government.

Any serious critique of the UPA’s conduct of foreign policy would be incomplete without further discussion of this government’s nuclear diplomacy with the US. The reason is simple. Since the July 2005 joint statement, Indian foreign policy has become paralysed by a ‘grand illusion’ that the Congress-UPA has sought to sustain, namely that (i) the nuclear deal is a panacea to India’s economic and technological modernization; (ii) all other foreign policy goals (and relationships) must subserve the successful culmination of this nuclear deal.

The BJP’s consistent and rational intervention in the national discourse over the nuclear deal is well documented. It requires reiteration that the BJP cannot accept the loss or diminution of the country’s strategic autonomy, implicit in the terms and conditions that accompany India’s so called ‘nuclear liberation’. These amount to permanently giving India a second-class status in the global nuclear order. Therefore, the BJP has consistently maintained that the deal in its present form is unacceptable and must be renegotiated.

The Indo - US is a vitally important relationship; it is not Dr. Manmohan Singh’s or the UPA’s gift to India. Which is why it is such a tragedy, and a shame, that on account of the PM’s maladroit handling of matters this relationship has now been reduced to a single issue; also with a completely unnecessary ‘now or never’ kind of desperation attached to it. The BJP would remind the PM that ‘desperation’ is not any alternative to policy. This is a great wrong done by Dr. Manmohan Singh; by the UPA to India; and to the US, and to Indo-US relations, too. Its efforts to secure a permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council have come to naught. The totally unprofessional manner in which the UPA government put up a candidate for the post of Secretary General of the UN, as if that high post was reserved for a Congress party nominee, without due consultation even within the country could only have a humiliating consequence. The UPA government was abjectly compelled to withdraw him, and that, too, prematurely, adding yet another sorry chapter to its many diplomatic disasters.

That is why the BJP’s charge is that during these last four years the UPA has caused unprecedented damage to India’s national interests; it has demonstrated unmatched incompetence, and an unrivalled paralysis of thought and action in office. They must, for India’s sake now go; ‘Depart; cause no further harm to our ancient land and its citizens’.

[Hariprasad]

I was just reading Photochor's interview. How he got the designs for long range missiles from NoKo in exchange for blueprints. How can India punish NoKo for this? What can be the suitable policy against it?