Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.


Indian Foreign Policy

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Posts: 898
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ArjunPandit » 14 Mar 2018 04:20

chetak wrote:
Parasu wrote:

This is a direct message to the pakis, no more, no less.

Moreover, the gas pipeline fiasco with the pakis has soured the eyeranians against the pakis rather badly so they will not be too eager to get into bed with the reneging pakis until some retribution/compensation is made to them by the pakis and this is very difficult for the pakis to do because of their nightmarish and ever worsening financial situation.

I would not read too much into it.

Even if the pakis and chinese do come into chabahar, India may still continue to have a direct access to afghanistan as well as the central asian hinterlands

exactly toi is unnecessarily creating sensation to grab eyes & balls. Pakistan doesnt have money to invest, and china if it does will spell the doom for gwadar (which anyways will happen from a commercial point, given balochistan). If there is some bonhomie, we can always assure that Chinese investments will be given "due consideration" after creation of Balochistan

Posts: 522
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 14 Mar 2018 04:45

India Backs Mauritius's Sovereignty Claim Over Chagos Islands at ICJ.

India has submitted a written statement to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in support of Mauritius’s demand for sovereignty over Chagos Archipelago from Britain.

Sources told The Wire that New Delhi submitted its statement on the Chagos question to The Hague-based ICJ on February 28, a day before the deadline.

The ICJ was asked by the UN General Assembly to give its advisory opinion on whether UK’s continuing possession of Chagos was in violation of international law. The General Assembly had agreed through a resolution on June 22, 2017 to refer two questions to the UN’s main judicial organ to give their advisory opinion. India was one of the 94 countries that voted in favour of the resolution.

After receiving the request, ICJ had fixed a deadline of January 30, 2018, for “the United Nations and its Member States” to furnish information.

But about two weeks before the deadline, ICJ extended the last day to March 1. The extension was mainly on the request of the African Union, which had requested permission to also ‘furnish information’ to the world court. Accepting the request, the court then extended the time limit till March 1 and the comments on written statements to May 15.

The extension in time limit was welcome as in mid-January, India was still debating whether New Delhi should take the step to back Mauritius at the ICJ.

According to sources aware of the contents of India’s statement, New Delhi had reiterated its previous position that the process of decolonisation should be completed. India emphasised that the sovereignty of Chagos should revert to Mauritius.

In 1965, three years before giving independence to Mauritius, UK detached the Chagos Archipelago to form a separate British Indian Ocean Territory, expelled the population and then leased the territory to US to establish a military base on the largest island of Diego Garcia. As part of the 1965 ‘Lancaster House’ undertakings, Mauritius had got £3 million in compensation and a commitment that Chagos would be returned once UK decided that there was no defence-related purposes to the islands.

In November 2016, UK announced that US’s lease had been renewed for another 20 years till 2036.

As The Wire had reported earlier in January, Mauritius had made a strong request to India to submit a statement to bolster its position before the ICJ, which could give its advisory opinion as early as mid-2018.

An advisory opinion of ICJ is not legally binding, but carries “great legal weight and moral authority” :roll: .

According to sources, the US had been apprised by India about the background to the decision to submit a written statement. India had explained to the US that the written statement was a traditional foreign policy position and necessary to give assurance to a long-time ally in the Indian Ocean.

There had been a debate within the Indian government over taking the step of presenting a legal argument, especially since New Delhi did not want the US to move out of the Indian Ocean and leave a vacuum for the Chinese to fill in.

This is, of course, a reflection of the current geopolitical reality in the region.But for a long time, India had been a staunch and active opponent of the military base at Diego Garcia.

According to a former US diplomat R. Grant Smith, US naval ships could not visit Indian ports for a long period as they had to fill in a questionnaire which included a query whether the vessel had called or will call on a port not under control of a littoral state.

“It was a complicated bit of wording which really meant, ‘Has this ship been to or is it going to Diego Garcia,’ which was a base to which the Indians objected considerably,” said Smith, who had two postings in India in the 80s and 90s, in an oral history narrative to the Association of Diplomatic Studies and Training.

The MEA’s annual report of 1983-84 dwelled considerably on the expansion of the military base. It stated that the base had been expanded to allow for deployment of ground forces to US, Africa and Asia, with B-52 bombers also to be deployed.

As per the report:
“The existence of foreign bases and the military presence of non-littoral states in the Indian Ocean has been a matter of grave concern for India. Great Power military presence has a naturally deleterious impact on the security environment of the countries of the region as it introduces new tensions and conflicts and accentuates existing ones, thereby threatening peace and stability in our neighbourhood and in the world in general.”

Next year’s annual report also stated that India “continued to work for the removal of all foreign military presence from the Indian Ocean”.

“India maintained its support for the claim of Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, and called for its early return to Mauritius,” said the ministry’s 1984-85 annual report.

With the weight of history, it was difficult to suddenly take a contrary Indian position on Chagos despite concerns of Chinese presence, South Block finally decided.

In discussions at the official level on India’s written statement, US was categorically told that India was not looking for a change in the security framework in the Indian Ocean. This is also what India had said while voting in favour of the UNGA resolution last year.

It was not an explanation that the US would have been happy to hear, since both London and Washington had approached India to prevail upon Mauritius to withdraw the UNGA resolution.

India is perhaps Mauritius’s closest bilateral partner. Indian President Ram Nath Kovind is currently on a state visit to the Indian Ocean island on invitation to be the chief guest at celebrations to mark 50 years of independence.

The pressure on India had been made both in New York through the permanent missions and through meetings with senior officials. The matter had been raised by both the US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and US secretary of state Rex Tillerson with their counterparts in the run-up to the resolution being tabled in the UNGA.

On the other side, Mauritius had wanted India to be a co-sponsor. However, India refused the offer, claiming that remaining on the outside would allow it to have a channel of communication open with the US.

Incidentally, as per diplomatic sources, India had advised Mauritius to renew the offer to the US to lease Diego Garcia as a military base even if sovereignty was returned.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6789
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby anupmisra » 14 Mar 2018 05:17

This is serious, if true.

Iran ...backs Kashmir cause

Iran has invited China and Pakistan to participate in the development of the strategic Chabahar port and extended support to the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Foreign minister Javad Zarif...while speaking on Monday at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad, a think tank backed by Pakistan’s foreign ministry.
A statement issued by Pakistan’s Foreign Office following a meeting between Zarif and his counterpart Khawaja Asif on Monday said both sides had “reiterated support for the peaceful struggle of the peoples of Palestine and Kashmir for their right to self-determination”.

While this is a report by the paki FO, and it could be cooked up, if this is true then the Indian FO needs to take it up with their counterparts in Iran and confirm that the Iranian FM actually say that. This could damage Indo-Iranian relationships for a long time if confirmed.

On the other hand, if the Iranian FO denies that their FM ever said that about Kashmir, then the pakis have a lot of explaining to do. ... XvlGO.html

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6789
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby anupmisra » 14 Mar 2018 05:39

Following up on the paki FO statement, it is now verified that the pakis did release this statement.

Foreign Ministers of Iran and Pakistan held bilateral consultations in Islamabad, 12 March 2018

Pakistan and Iran reiterated support for the peaceful struggle of the peoples of Palestine and Kashmir for their right to self determination. The two countries also emphasized the need for honouring of the JCPOA commitments by all parties.

I hope the Iranian FM did not say it. Lets wait for their denial.,,

BRF Oldie
Posts: 18592
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 14 Mar 2018 10:27

That's perhaps the only way Mauritius will regain the Chagos islands by leasing it to the Yanquis.The CW is over but ghere's a new conflict brewing with the Dragon claiming squatting rights all over the globe, esp. in our backyard.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 14 Mar 2018 10:34

Akshay Kapoor wrote:I agree ‘historic ties’ have no relevance - in fact we don’t even know what that means. However there is definitely space to see if Iran Shi’a vs Pak Sunni conflict can be created. This is perhaps one of the most important tools and shouldn’t be dismissed without a proper analysis.

eyran has a lot to say about India's treatment of it's shias, just like the saudis lean on India for the sunnis. Both these sects look towards their respective "spiritual heads" abroad for "guidance and sustenance"

In this sectarian melee, the eyranians are just a shade bit more circumspect is all, because they do not have comparable resources to support their less numerous followers in India who have, comparatively, lesser political clout.

Both seek to influence India by manipulation of their "followers" here, by orchestrating processions and demonstrations about some sorry arse issues in some godforsaken corner of the world. There is a lot of "religious tourism" encouraged and sponsored by these ragheads.

With the advent of the sabka saath sabka vikas mantra, the GoI has put some of these malicious forces in their rightful place, i.e. the dustbin.

It will take some time to put these offshore ragheads in their place. FCRA has hit both the desert religions and all their sects by forcing them to come out in the open.

Sadly, hawala channels are used more frequently now by these affected NGOs.

"historic ties" is just a convenient fig leaf, used when there is actually nothing to say.

Actually, what "historic ties"?? Aren't these the very b@$t@&d$, all of whom invaded and plundered us?? and now suddenly we are ancient friends?? The whites, persians or the arabs are all guilty of the same genocidal invasions.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 16383
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 14 Mar 2018 10:46

anupmisra wrote:Following up on the paki FO statement, it is now verified that the pakis did release this statement.

Foreign Ministers of Iran and Pakistan held bilateral consultations in Islamabad, 12 March 2018

Pakistan and Iran reiterated support for the peaceful struggle of the peoples of Palestine and Kashmir for their right to self determination. The two countries also emphasized the need for honouring of the JCPOA commitments by all parties.

I hope the Iranian FM did not say it. Lets wait for their denial.,,

No denials will be forthcoming.

This is, in fact, the de jure as well as the de facto positions of both parties.

Hindustan is the common target. The pakis are very cut up that they are not allowed to make money from the Hindus in India, unlike the eyranians and the saudis who also hold as well as support very similar views but have managed to put their petro dollars to work for them in India.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 5088
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 14 Mar 2018 19:59

Philip wrote:That's perhaps the only way Mauritius will regain the Chagos islands by leasing it to the Yanquis.The CW is over but ghere's a new conflict brewing with the Dragon claiming squatting rights all over the globe, esp. in our backyard.
If we were bold enough, we would offer to take over from the US. Would love to see the IN venturing out and leave the coast to the Coast Guard. I can dream, na?

BRF Oldie
Posts: 9541
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arun » 19 Mar 2018 10:14

X Posted from the India – Russia : News & Analyses thread

A three week old interview of Sergei Karaganov, described as Economic and Foreign Policy Adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin by Indrani Bagchi.

A defensive reaction by Sergei Karaganov when Indrani Bagchi describes Russia as almost a ”Younger Sibling” of the Peoples Republic of China.

With Russia playing footsie with the PRC and the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan, it is long past time that India delivers reminding poke to Russia’s eyes say over Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, Skripal or some such act of dubious Russian behaviour that their dalliance with countries inimical to India will not be cost free:

The evolving Russia-China relationship appears to be of concern to India. How do you see it, and how will it affect India?

India has to understand that by virtue of both history and geography China is our closest neighbour. We have to have good relations with them. Our relationship with India is not dependent on our relationship with China. We have to think differently. We have to build bigger relations with China but this would be balanced positively by others. At this juncture you (India) have a tense relationship with China, but being so preoccupied with China is not very healthy – just like we were preoccupied with the US. We have a closer relationship with China, we are more involved in international affairs, (and) it’s very different from what it used to be 10-15 years ago.

The India-China relationship is fraught with tension. What if Russia is asked to make a choice?

We understand the difficulties and differences in your systems. China is becoming a more complex and sophisticated society. We have to give history a chance, in spite of our ideological anxieties. Act calmly.

If you need help from Russia as an intermediary, we could help. But we will not take sides. We will not jeopardise Russian interests for either China or India. We think that the fact that you are hostile to one another is an aberration. The sooner you solve it, the better. Thirty-forty years ago there was deep distrust between Russia and China, including a territorial dispute. Now, because of the wisdom of our peoples, the Russia-China border is most peaceful.

Some would say Russia is almost a younger sibling to China.

We are quasi allies right now, because the United States has chosen to contain both Russia and China, which is a strategic failure by the US. We also have a lot of common interests. Russia cannot be a junior brother to anybody and has never been so – from the heirs of Genghis Khan to Napoleon and Hitler, we have defeated them all.

The India-Russia relationship is confined to governments, how would you broaden it?

We should have common courses between Indian and Russian universities, open up our economies to each other – our $7 billion trade is an aberration. We should open up people-to-people contacts – there is only goodwill on either side. There are some members of the Russian elite who are fearful of China – not too many, but some. But there is none of that with India. On strategic affairs, for instance, we have serious conversations – but all this only at the top level. It doesn’t go deeper in the two systems.

In 2018, what would you say are top Russian foreign policy priorities?

Our top priority is Russia’s internal development – this is important for both our strategic and foreign policy. We’re good at diplomacy and good at military power and international manoeuvring but we have a relatively weak economic base, which is a longer term problem.

Our most important foreign priority would be keeping peace in the world – very important for Russia, and also because the global situation is worse than at any time in decades.

Second, building a robust relationship with China based on concept of greater Eurasia. Third, rebuilding our relationship with Europe, not on the previous basis which failed but on a new footing. Next in geographical terms would be India – because our relations with India are clear and there are unused opportunities that have been missed in the last 30 years.

How would you characterise the Russia-Pakistan relationship?

Pakistan is an important player, we want to be involved, have a relationship with them. But they are not in the same category as China or India.

Is Russia supporting Taliban in Afghanistan?

We are playing a very complicated game – sometimes we support somebody, sometimes we help somebody else. Taliban is also different. When we saw the US going in with ground troops we were aghast. That was a disaster. Now it’s different – we want it to be confined to Afghanistan’s borders. If needed we will support Taliban, if needed, we will support anti-Taliban forces. But they should not spread the ‘Afghan disease’ or terrorism disease to the neighbouring areas, be that India or central Asia. For the time being we don’t want US troops to leave Afghanistan – their withdrawal would create more problems. We understand that unlike India or China, they don’t have a vested interest, they don’t want to lose face. But for us it’s a huge national security issue.

‘China and Russia are quasi allies … On strategic affairs Russia and India have serious conversations only at top level’

Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashish raval, gauravsharma and 43 guests