Bharat Rakshak

SSridhar wrote:
New Strong and Clear Outreach - Nirupama Rao, The Hindu

habal wrote:in europe the mainstream and assertive jews who could not be associated with christianity, lutheran, catholic, protestant groups formed a third front called communism to remain politically relevant. Most early communists were jewish. Marx, Lenin (Levin), Trotsky, Chomsky, Lazar Kaganovich, Trotsky's great grandson is Obama's advisor David Axelrod. Apart from this crowd, it also had other (then) social misfits. So it's not just about being beholden to China. It's being beholden to an international mafia of whom china is an ocassional member and an ally of convenience. Both communists and Islamists in India take their cue from west.

India today said it firmly believes that a peaceful and secure neighbourhood will yield "rich dividends" for SAARC countries even as it asserted that time has come to take stock of past decisions of the grouping on which there has been no movement.

In his statement during the 42nd SAARC Standing Committee Meeting here, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar said India is pursuing with renewed vigour its "neighbourhood first" policy which also translates into priority for SAARC initiatives.

"We believe that there is scope for further rationalisation of SAARC processes. Perhaps the time has come for us to also take stock of past decisions and initiatives, given that there are so many instances of such decisions not seeing any movement for many years," Jaishankar, who arrived here on Monday, said.

"We are firmly of the belief that a peaceful, secure and prosperous neighbourhood will yield rich dividends for all of us," he said.

Noting that the grouping has some useful agreements in the area of security, including the Convention on Terrorism, Narcotic Drugs and on Human Trafficking, Jaishankar said a major challenge that the region faces is that of circulation of fake currency notes.

"This is closely interlinked with the problems of money- laundering, drug trafficking and human trafficking as well as financing of terrorism. It would, therefore, be in the interest of the people of our region for us to collaborate at the SAARC level to tackle this matter," he said.

The Foreign Secretary asserted that connectivity holds the key for prosperity and development and will shape the destinies of all countries of South Asia.

"With this understanding, we have embarked on significant projects in the region in areas such as rail and road building, power generation and transmission, waterway usage and shipping through regional, sub-regional, trilateral and bilateral arrangements. This represents a change of mindset and makes us believe that the logic of regional cooperation has finally arrived in the region," Jaishankar asserted.

"Yet, the pace of regional cooperation as a collective endeavour needs to be hastened, especially in areas that are central to the development agenda of SAARC. In this context, I urge that we sign, at an early date, the SAARC Motor Vehicles Agreement and SAARC Railways Agreement," he said.

Finalisation and implementation of these agreements will realise a long standing dream of seamless movement of passengers and cargo through the entire region, he added.

Jaishankar's statement came a day before the SAARC ministerial meeting.

India will host the eighth annual summit of BRICS from October 15-16 in Goa, in its capacity as chair of the influential bloc comprising five countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made the announcement on Tuesday during a function where she also unveiled a logo and a website of the summit.

India assumed chairmanship of BRICS from Russia on February 15 and will hold the position till December 31. The seventh summit was held in Ufa, Russia.

The External Affairs Minister said India’s core theme during BRICS chairmanship will be building responsive, inclusive and collective solutions for the grouping.

The logo for the summit is a lotus with colours from all the five member-countries and a traditional ‘namaste’ in the centre.

“We will adopt a five-pronged approach during our chairmanship. It will comprise Institution Building, Implementation, Integration, Innovation, and Continuity with Consolidation (IIIIC or I4C),” the Minister said. — PTI

Is India approaching a pivotal moment in its foreign policy? Will the emerging shape of Indo-US relations help or hinder India’s prospects? There has been a great deal of momentum in Indo-US relations beginning with the nuclear agreements. The depth of the economic, cultural, scientific and intellectual relationship between the two countries can be of unprecedented benefit to both. The question is: To what extent should this relationship be transformed into a deep strategic and military partnership? The debate in government over signing three possible agreements with the US — the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — has once again focused attention on this question. Will these agreements be Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parting gift to President Barack Obama? Radical breaks in Indian foreign policy are rare. These agreements are in line with the trends the UPA initiated. But are we at that moment when, inchoately, quantity becomes quality, and we go down on a path that prematurely forecloses options?

A sophisticated engagement with the US is in India’s interests. But there is reason to worry that the escalating nature of our defence agreements with the US will put us on a slippery slope where we may not be able to manage our own geopolitical positioning in the world’s major conflicts. This is not a necessary outcome of these engagements. But what should make us suspicious is the fact that deep down, the Indian strategic embrace of the US has been born out of a psychology of defeatism: As if the US will be our crutch against China. And the Washington establishment that now has unprecedented access to Indian circles of power eggs on that belief.

Modi’s great rhetorical gambit was the overcoming of defeatism. Yet it is hard to shake off the impression that this government seems a little keener to ingratiate India with the American foreign policy establishment. America will be India’s great civilisational friend; whether the American state should be so tightly embraced is still an open question.

We need to at least debate this more openly before we set out on a path of no return.

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, and contributing editor, ‘The Indian Express’

ramana wrote:ShauryaT, After Iraq decade and Abu Ghraib, US military has lost its reputation and needs to associate with Indian military which is the largest non Communist force.

Hence this charade of CISMOA and all those agreements to give them legitimacy.

A balancing act in Riyadh

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Riyadh reflects a resolve to deepen India’s engagement in West Asia. The visit comes eight months after Mr. Modi travelled to the United Arab Emirates, and it is expected be followed by one to Israel. This demonstrates New Delhi’s tightrope-walking foreign policy towards the region. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has been a traditional source of energy and of remittances for India. In recent years, bilateral ties had acquired a security dimension with both countries stepping up cooperation in counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing. While Mr. Modi is clearly trying to build on the existing momentum, he is also seeking to upgrade the economic and security cooperation into a strategic partnership with Riyadh — an approach that is in line with the wider foreign policy outreach to improve ties with close allies of Pakistan. The timing of Mr. Modi’s visit is significant. It has been reported that there are tensions in the Pakistan-Saudi relationship after Islamabad’s renewed engagement with Iran. Pakistan had also refused to send troops to Yemen to join a Saudi war coalition. This is, therefore, a particularly good time to deepen ties, and the Saudis have responded positively. Hours ahead of Mr. Modi landing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. imposed joint sanctions on individuals linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Moreover, the joint statement issued by India and Saudi Arabia has an oblique reference to Pakistan as it calls on all states to dismantle terror infrastructure “where they happen to exist”. The India-UAE joint communiqué in August had made a similar call.

The real question, however, is whether the joint statements will be translated into actual policies. Despite some tensions, there is nothing substantial to suggest that the Pakistani-Saudi alliance is getting any worse. Even though the joint statement denounces all kinds of terrorism, the Saudis are accused of funding extremist groups in West Asia, particularly in war-torn Syria. Besides, there are some fundamental weak spots in India-Saudi ties, ranging from concerns about Indian workers in the kingdom to its funding of Wahhabi groups elsewhere, including in India. Another obvious concern is the drastic change under way in West Asia, and the aggressive role Riyadh is playing in regional geopolitics. During the visit Mr. Modi may have focussed on the positive factors of the relationship to improve ties, and rightly so. But India cannot afford to miss the big picture while finessing policies. There have to be mechanisms to address the flaws as well, without which the grand diplomatic overtures may not bear fruit. Also, India would be wary of appearing partisan at a time when the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia is at its peak. The best way forward is to continue the multi-directional West Asia policy with more vigour, but maintaining its equilibrium.

Philip wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editori ... avdropdown

A balancing act in Riyadh

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Riyadh reflects a resolve to deepen India’s engagement in West Asia. The visit comes eight months after Mr. Modi travelled to the United Arab Emirates, and it is expected be followed by one to Israel. This demonstrates New Delhi’s tightrope-walking foreign policy towards the region...

Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?

In a discussion on this topic, a former naval chief had no answer to the kind of objections I have raised above, or why the Navy in particular would rather rely on US warships or the base at Diego Garcia for mid-oceanic resupply and replenishment than speedily invest in and build-up the naval and air bases on North and South Agalega Islands offered by Mauritius, or on shore in a base in northern Mozambique offered by that country.

CISMOA: news reports portray Indian negotiators being satisfied with something called the “pre-bid guarantee” in case India chooses to manufacture an US armament system here — a combat aircraft, for instance. This “pre-bid guarantee: is supposed to require the US govt to guarantee the full transfer of technology. One can foresee how this will pan out. Such a guarantee is given but the supplier companies keep to the old way of doing things with India, namely, merely exporting first SKD kits, followed years later, by CKD kits while claiming there is full TOT. If questioned, they’ll point out that it is not their responsibility to ensure Indian firms, DPSUs, ingest and innovate the technologies passed on to them — which will be an irrefutable case. And hand over the full tranche of contracted funds, please! This guarantee, in the Indian context, is worth nothing.

The more significant issue is why the Modi PMO is going down this route. And shouldn’t it have been advised better, asked to temper their enthusiasm, not go full out, without being aware of booby traps down the supposed primrose path? The trouble is those in MEA advising the PM have long since jumped on to the American bandwagon. Foreign Secretary S, Jaishankar — his father K Subrahmanyam’s son alright — is in the van on these accords. Recall it was Subrahmanyam during the previous BJP govt’s tenure who persistently advocated buying peace with the US — sign the CTBT he said in 1996 along with his acolytes, such as Air Cmde Jasjit Singh, and for making the sorts of concessions his son first negotiated (as Joint Secretary, Americas) in the 2008 nuclear deal with the Congress party apparatchik Manmohan Singh as PM, and now as head of the foreign service, is configuring these foundational ags for an ideologically different, supposedly “nationalist”, BJP regime.

If China is the major worry and military cooperation with the US is deemed necessary, India can maximize collaborative activity and have similar outcomes by other solutions than committing to agreements that only bonafide allies of the US have so far accepted. Close embrace with any big power is always to the lesser state’s detriment. For India that sees itself as a great power in the process of being, it is all the more necessary to keep its distance but work with all powers, especially Russia and the regional states, such as Japan, and on the extended Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian littorals to more effectively stymie Beijing.

But this is obviously not the sort of counsel Modi hears, indicating the lack of professionalism in MEA and at the centre of foreign policymaking in New Delhi. Neither Modi — a politician, nor NSA, Ajit Doval, an ex-policeman, can be expected to know the complexities of friendship with the US formalized in treaty-like agreements. But MEA staffers are expected to do so. That they are failing in their duty to warn the PMO of pitfalls ahead, is what’s worrisome. By the time India begins to pay the full price of such accords pushed on the run, the present dramatis personae will have vacated the scene, and no one will be held accountable for the loss of India’s freedom of policy maneuver, its basic autonomy, and worse.

ShauryaT wrote:Scathing, but nothing less is expected from him. Thank God we have one soul to advocate a non-compromised view of our national interests and nothing else.

Steering into troubled seas with eyes wide open

Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?

arshyam wrote:But he does have a valid point wrt payments under LSA. Why should we get into the quagmire that's the US congress?

ShauryaT wrote:Scathing, but nothing less is expected from him. Thank God we have one soul to advocate a non-compromised view of our national interests and nothing else.

Steering into troubled seas with eyes wide open

Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?

ShauryaT wrote:Also, the LSA is NOT a barter system. It has reciprocity to "offset" purchases made against sales. However the supply transaction does have an underlying monetary value and indeed it demands that these purchases made be settled, within a period of agreed credit terms. It is no different from any commercial agreement in that sense, where both parties trade with each other, raise invoices and then agree to do a settlement (in cash) within a set number of days.

Again, the point is not the mechanics here. These agreements are a spin off of the strategic framework co-operation envisaged and to imagine that they do not impede strategic choices is being naive, for a strategic embrace is being executed.

Economic interests are part of the tilt, but so too is Saudi pique at Pakistan's refusal to back its military adventure in Yemen. Summary⎙ Print Pakistan, after refusing to supply troops for Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen, finds the Gulf kingdom improving relations with Pakistani archenemy India. just days before the visit, the United States and Saudi Arabia jointly announced sanctions against four individuals and two organizations in Pakistan involved in financing terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The joint announcement was unprecedented. Four years ago, the kingdom deported a senior Lashkar-e-Taiba official to India who had been involved in the 2008 Lashkar-e-Taiba attack on Mumbai, which was backed by Pakistani intelligence. Modi met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is also minister of interior and the kingdom's top counterterrorism official.. The Pakistani emigre population is about 1.5 million and trade was about $6 billion last year. Modi met with senior Aramco officials to discuss more energy and investment opportunities.This was only the fourth visit ever by an Indian prime minister to the kingdom. By contrast, Pakistani prime ministers often visit that many times in a single year. Sharif, who is again prime minister, was in Saudi Arabia in early March to watch the Northern Thunder military parade in which troops from 21 Muslim countries participated, although the place of honor next to the king was given to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.A year ago, Sharif wisely rebuffed Salman's request to provide Pakistani troops to join the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen fighting the Houthi rebellion. The Pakistani move removed a key component of the Saudi plan for a quick, decisive victory in Yemen. Sharif's decision was very popular at home, however, and was endorsed by a unanimous vote in the parliament. Lashkar-e-Taiba was among the few voices critical of Sharif's decision. His top aides privately anticipated some blowback from the Saudis would result.. Sharif has allegedly rebuffed Saudi suggestions that Pakistan's chief of army staff be made the titular commander of the alliance.The Saudis now seem eager for the Yemen war to end. They have proclaimed a victory in preventing the emergence of an Iranian foothold in the Arabian Peninsula. Whether that was ever a serious danger is uncertain, but it gives Riyadh some face-saving cover for ending the war with the Houthis still in Sanaa. A cease-fire is scheduled for April 10, and talks are planned for April 18 in Kuwait to end the conflict.The war has created a humanitarian disaster for Arabia's poorest country and generated widespread criticism of the kingdom around the world. The European Parliament voted to cut off all arms sales to Saudi Arabia, for example. While not a binding vote, it is a symbolic defeat for Saudi diplomacy.Pakistan will remain a key ally for Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has invested billions in supporting Pakistan for decades. The military relationship between the two remains robust despite the differences over Yemen. The bonds of religion and history unite the two Islamic countries. Sharif knows Riyadh will want to avoid any damage to its ties to Islamabad. But Salman is also warning Pakistan that the kingdom has other suitors.

arshyam wrote: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1987820

Viv S wrote:The Modi govt seems to be all for it. This is going ruffle quite a feathers here on BRF.

Count me in! I don't see what benefits we will derive from this - can you, SSridhar sir or someone in the know enumerate? I am genuinely asking, in case there are things I don't know of.

As of now, it appears to me that this will make it easy for US assets to use Indian facilities more frequently and openly, with a presumably reciprocal arrangement built in. Question is, what are the places we can expect reciprocity? Diego Garcia? Bahrain? San Diego? Norfolk? We have no regular business in the latter 2 locations, so we won't be using them much, if at all (not talking about joint exercises). Diego Garcia and Bahrain don't really count - they are close to our littoral, and we have similar arrangements of our own (Muscat, Oman, Nha Trang, Vietnam, Mauritius, etc.)

Whereas the US assets will now have legitimate business in Mumbai, Karwar, Kochi, Visakhapatnam, Chennai, Port Blair, etc. Which means, they get regular access to our mainland bases, whereas we practically get access to their forward locations only, as their mainland is far outside our operational areas. Seems to be a one-way street to me.

NRao wrote: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1987913

As of now, it appears to me that this will make it easy for US assets to use Indian facilities more frequently and openly, with a presumably reciprocal arrangement built in. Question is, what are the places we can expect reciprocity? Diego Garcia? Bahrain? San Diego? Norfolk? We have no regular business in the latter 2 locations, so we won't be using them much, if at all (not talking about joint exercises). Diego Garcia and Bahrain don't really count - they are close to our littoral, and we have similar arrangements of our own (Muscat, Oman, Nha Trang, Vietnam, Mauritius, etc.)

I think India has provided facilities in Kochi - for some time now.

India can expect anywhere - Okinawa, Hawaii, Djibouti, Kuwait, high seas, etc. Anywhere there is a US presence.

vishvak wrote:So what's wrong with payment system, and what makes Americans avoid it?

The payment system makes the purchases transactional. If ain't broken don't fix it.

Where is the world coming to when Americans talk of barter system!?!?

ShauryaT wrote:Also, the LSA is NOT a barter system. It has reciprocity to "offset" purchases made against sales. However the supply transaction does have an underlying monetary value and indeed it demands that these purchases made be settled, within a period of agreed credit terms. It is no different from any commercial agreement in that sense, where both parties trade with each other, raise invoices and then agree to do a settlement (in cash) within a set number of days.

Again, the point is not the mechanics here. These agreements are a spin off of the strategic framework co-operation envisaged and to imagine that they do not impede strategic choices is being naive, for a strategic embrace is being executed.

ShauryaT wrote:NRao has posted. We can get reciprocity in Hawaii!! A major independent power seeking logistics agreements for its own backyard from a distant power is a statement of travesty, for the independence of that power. A "reciprocal" agreement between two unequal powers with differing interests, objectives and capabilities is stretching the idea of parity of the outcomes of such an agreement. It makes sense for a Sri Lanka, maybe, but not for India. Indeed, I would say in an Indian dominated region, Sri Lanka should have been vary of India's concerns by signing an LSA with the US but India is in no such position to even stop forays of Chinese nuclear subs, let alone US ships being replenished.

ShauryaT wrote:The American hug

Is India approaching a pivotal moment in its foreign policy? Will the emerging shape of Indo-US relations help or hinder India’s prospects? There has been a great deal of momentum in Indo-US relations beginning with the nuclear agreements. The depth of the economic, cultural, scientific and intellectual relationship between the two countries can be of unprecedented benefit to both. The question is: To what extent should this relationship be transformed into a deep strategic and military partnership? The debate in government over signing three possible agreements with the US — the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — has once again focused attention on this question. Will these agreements be Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parting gift to President Barack Obama? Radical breaks in Indian foreign policy are rare. These agreements are in line with the trends the UPA initiated. But are we at that moment when, inchoately, quantity becomes quality, and we go down on a path that prematurely forecloses options?

ShauryaT wrote:VivS: The payment terms are 60 days. The settlement is at least once a quarter, could be more frequent, like every month.

Pretty standards terms between trading partners. When invoices start coming in, congressional scrutiny is par for the course.

But I agree, these references are intended to set alarms, desperately needed in the corridors of power gone deaf. Our MEA and PMO are not exactly known to have a strategic independent mind set - where it actually matters. Shenanigans like congressional scrutiny are the tools one is left to, when common sense and national interests have been thrown to the wind. Something has to be done to wake up folks in slumber.

As long as the cool aid is not being sold that these agreements do not have any bearing or impact on strategic maneuvering choices in a long chain of events that started with the NSSP. We should look at these with our eyes wide open to what it entails and then live with these choices. The worst is to under ball them as overcoming "bureaucratic" procedures.

ShauryaT wrote:Viv S: Good, so you think the strategic embrace is justified in view of the China threat and a need to be "allied". Fair enough. Although do recognize that for the arguments you have presented there are some serious alternatives on hand that are NOT being explored and in these choices lie India's strategic independence.

India is a civilizational state and her interests and aspirations ought to match her innate capabilities, desires and values. It is these factors that separates us from ANY of the other "allies" of the US.

I will come back to your points later. First day of Chaitra today so head is spinning from a fast now. For the LSA reference, here is an example. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/132080.pdf

India can't grow in isolation, says Foreign Secretary
PTI | Apr 8, 2016, 11.05 PM IST

New Delhi, Apr 8 () Highlighting the importance of cooperation and connectivity in the country's neibhourhood policy, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar today said "India cannot grow in isolation".

While access to service and movement of people has become difficult in today's world, "people lose out by remaining disconnected", he said at an event here.

"India cannot grow in isolation. We find it much harder to do so without the support of the region. For that reason, it is imperative that cooperation and connectivity with neighbours grow rapidly.

"This is the essence of our neighbourhood policy...We don't expect this to be easy path but are confident that obstacles in path would be overcome. It is for Indian diplomacy to address the imbalances which have constrained neighbourhood partnership," Jaishankar said.

He further said "fruits" of partnership is already "visible to our neighbours".

"Each of our neighbours wants to invest here and built connectivity projects. Everyone wants to make money out of India," he said.

Referring to movement of people, he said "we have had visa issues with the US. We had visa issues with the UK".

"These are the challenges we are facing today...global trade discourse has to be fairer then it is today," he added.

Jaishankar said India's neighbouring countries are all taking advantage of various connectivity and infra projects that the country is developing.

He further said Asean holds an important position in India's foreign policy.

"Today we have started supplying power to Myanmar for the first time," he said, adding this is a culmination of the government's aggressive Look East policy.

India is doing all it can to strengthen ties with China, Korea and Japan.

He said a number of economic corridors, industrial parks and connectivity projects are coming up in India in collaboration with foreign countries.

Talking about the US, he said both sides are having "deeper cooperation".

"India's foreign policy is conscious of fact that demands are going to grow ... Pressures of international economic consequences pose as a challenge," he said.

He said that energy security forms a crucial part of Indian diplomacy and a focus will be on hydroelectric projects and expanding nuclear energy programme.

Every Indian embassy around the world has a commercial attache, which shows the government's focus on inviting investments and also investing abroad, the Secretary said.

On India-Iran trade relationship, Jaishankar said it was constrained due to sanction.

"Iran offers us way to Afghanistan. We are working with Iran to set up a port," he said.

On the issue of manpower in external affairs, he said there are constraints but the government is trying to overcome by increasing intake.

"Are you stretched for people? Yes I am," he said, adding the existing staff has also stretched their work to meet the shortfall of headcount.