Indian Foreign Policy

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 17 Jun 2018 12:07

In China's case their "peaceful rise" phraseology immediately comes to the mind where BS was used to deflect questions on their real intentions. I am sure we can find some equivalent antics of US and EU too.

So what Sushma Swaraj did/said is not exceptional.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10424
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 17 Jun 2018 12:10

Setback in seychelles.
Amar Ujala @AmarUjalaNews

यात्रा से पहले सिशेल्स के राष्ट्रपति ने दिया भारत को झटका, नौसैनिक अड्डा बनाने की डील रद्द की #Seychelles @narendramodi @PMOIndiahttps://www.amarujala.com/india-news/seychelles-has-cancelled-the-agreement-with-india-to-build-a-military-facility-on-assumption-island?src=top-lead …

The path forward is never smooth or a straight line. One must accept temporary setback like the above as par for the course and continue to work on it.

Ok.. here is an English write-up
Times of India Verified account @timesofindia

Seychelles won't move forward on naval project with India: President Danny Faure http://toi.in/AD0SIb/a24gk

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1441
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Pulikeshi » 17 Jun 2018 12:13

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


Let me say at the outset, that I am somewhat disinterested in this... but wanted to make a point regarding foreign policy and strategy:

She is an elected leader with a track record that enables her to say what she said - calling it drivel - says something about the critic not the sayer.
Indian Foriegn policy - is enriched by offering an alternative to the US-bloc and China-bloc - the audience here is neither Trump nor Xi
China, EU, US all have some version of Harmonius Rise, US first, etc. India’s is based on Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam!

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


What you claim as spouting Vedas to adharmics is indeed what has many countries in trouble. Naked pursuit of interest leaves a bad taste in the mouth of all those willing to ally behind principles. The world is in transition, nations are realigning, Indian Foriegn Policy needs to present its unique USP without being obnoxious or pedantic. If anything, I’d argue for a Multi-Re-Alignment Policy for India :mrgreen:

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


‘Me first’ seems to be why you want to offer one president what you assumes he cares about... but the US is a complex country and cannot be reduced to one man or one dimension - such an assumption would be fatal to the complex foreign policy strategy India is burdened to pursue for some time to come.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9730
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby UlanBatori » 17 Jun 2018 12:19

I don't see why India has to cut ties with Iran just because the US unilaterally withdrew from a pact that the US signed - and there is no material evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the pact. Anyway, ties to Iran, which is so close to India, constitute a crucial Indian strategic interest, which trumps, no pun intended, any knee-jerk actions by people on the other side of the dunia.

Same deal on Russia: there is a long-standing strategic and just plain friendly relationship with Russia, that is not subject to the whims of London or DupleeCity. Buy the damn S-400s and a whole fleet of Pak-50s or whatever, and then that is the new reality. The problem is the 50-year drawn-out non-decision-making in dilli-dally.

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 17 Jun 2018 12:33

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

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

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

Pretending to be ethical and moral is diplomacy. I dont hear Americans saying, we will bomb North Korea if it does not give up nuclear weapons, because they are a threat. They hide behind "totalitarian regime, human rights, past actions" arguments. Same arguments against Iran.
And yes, EU and China indulge in hypocrisy all the time too.
I dont know who is being immature here.
India did try to court Trump initially by reducing tariffs on Harley Davidson. It didnt work. So now Modi and co are retaliating. Besides India is a democracy. It cant just give him some `hotel` to Trump. Even if we believe that is somehow going to work.
Collective progress bit has been left behind. Thats why Modi didnt attend the NAM summit. That does not mean we should not talk sweet and nice and turn into foolish Trump.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Trikaal » 17 Jun 2018 12:47

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


What are u talking about? EU has been shouting from the rooftops complaining about Trump's policy. Canada's PM actually offered to fly in at a moment's notice and begged for a meeting. China has been complaining about tariffs. Every day, gobar times carries an article warning about tarrifs. No one is acting silently.

How can clearly stating your stand be pointless? This is geopolitics, clearly stating your policy allows others to understand ur position. Ambiguity is the enemy of cooperation and india needs allies to be a significant power block in a multipolar world.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23049
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 21 Jun 2018 08:15

‘India for rules-based world order’ - The Hindu
Articulating the principles of Indian foreign policy, President Ram Nath Kovind on Tuesday said India wants to be a rule framer in a multi-polar world. In a lecture delivered during his ongoing trip to Greece, the President said New Delhi wishes to create a rules-based world order that will not differentiate between “good” and “bad” terrorism.

The speech highlighted India’s commitment to multi-polarity weeks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi presented the concept of “strategic autonomy” in his speech at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore on 1 June. Both “strategic autonomy” in Prime Minister Modi’s speech and President Kovind’s emphasis upon maintaining multilateral commitments indicates at India maintaining a non-aligned attitude towards major power blocs in the world.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23049
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 21 Jun 2018 08:31

India’s pivot to Eurasia - PS Raghavan, The Hindu

P.S. Raghavan, a former diplomat, is Convenor of the National Security Advisory Board.

Sandwiched between U.S. President Donald Trump’s acrimonious public exchanges with other leaders at the G-7 (group of seven industrialised countries) summit (June 7-8) and the headline-hogging U.S.-North Korea summit (June 12), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China (June 9-10) attracted little international attention. It was the first SCO summit attended by India as a full-fledged member (It has been an observer since 2005.)

The SCO grew out of the Shanghai Five grouping — of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan — which was set up in 1996 to resolve boundary disputes between China and each of the four other members. It admitted Uzbekistan in 2001, re-christened itself the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and broadened its agenda to include political, economic and security cooperation. It admitted India and Pakistan as full members in 2017.

The SCO opportunity

The admission of India and Pakistan has expanded the geographical, demographic and economic profile of the SCO, which now has about half the world’s population and a quarter of its GDP. Its boundary extends southwards to the Indian Ocean.

The SCO’s relevance for India lies in geography, economics and geopolitics. Its members occupy a huge landmass adjacent to India’s extended neighbourhood, where India has important economic and security interests. Its Central Asian countries border Afghanistan, Pakistan and China. A narrow sliver of land separates southern Tajikistan from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. When you have complicated relations with your neighbours, it makes sense to strengthen relations with your neighbours’ neighbours. With Pakistan joining the Organisation and Afghanistan and Iran knocking on the doors for membership, the logic of India’s membership becomes stronger.

Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the optimal development of India’s relations with Central Asian countries has been constrained by lack of overland access through Pakistan and Afghanistan/Iran, because of political and/or security reasons. With new multimodal transport corridors now envisaged through Iran, there are again prospects of invigorating trade and investment links with this region (provided fresh U.S. sanctions on Iran do not stymie this effort).

In the formative years of the SCO, Russia pushed strongly for India to join it, to somewhat balance China’s economic dominance in Central Asia. The Chinese were not responsive. China has since consolidated its energy and economic foothold in the region, where ambitious infrastructure and connectivity projects are envisaged as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It has secured the simultaneous admission of Pakistan into the SCO. India has to carve out a political and economic space for itself in Central Asia, alongside Russia’s role as net security provider and China’s dominating economic presence. The Central Asian countries would welcome India breaking into this Russia-China duopoly.

The India-Pakistan interaction was closely watched in Qingdao. The handshake and exchange of pleasantries between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan President Mamnoon Hussain were noted, as also the absence of bilateral altercations. It allayed apprehensions, expressed in the run-up to Indian and Pakistani accession, that SCO deliberations would get bogged down by India-Pakistan squabbles. It also respected the etiquette of international organisations: countries join them to promote shared objectives, not to settle bilateral scores.

The India-Pakistan track

Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested that harmonious cooperation in the SCO may pave the way for an India-Pakistan rapprochement, recalling that SCO membership had facilitated resolution of China’s boundary disputes with Russia and Central Asian countries. Chinese officials have also expressed this hope. The circumstances are not comparable. China made substantial concessions to settle its boundary disputes with Russia and Central Asia, in pursuit of larger strategic and economic objectives in the region. India-Pakistan differences extend well beyond a boundary dispute, flow from different historical circumstances and are located in a different geopolitical environment.

The SCO will, however, nudge both countries to cooperate in sensitive areas. One example is the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) of the SCO, which coordinates cooperation for security and stability, through intelligence-sharing on criminal and terrorist activities. India and Pakistan, which exchange mutual recriminations in such matters, have to find ways of cooperating in the RATS. Defence cooperation is another tricky area: enhanced linkages between armed forces is an SCO objective. India has agreed to participate in the SCO’s counter-terrorism military exercises in Russia later this year, when Indian and Pakistani troops will operate together. Reconciling Indian and Pakistani perspectives in the SCO’s initiatives on Afghanistan would be yet another challenge.

The expansion of SCO has diluted its unanimity on hitherto shared perspectives. Tacitly accepting the fact that India and Pakistan are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Qingdao declaration confirms the compliance of the SCO’s NPT signatories to its provisions. India’s reservations on China’s BRI are accommodated by excluding it from the list of SCO members that endorse it (all except India). The boilerplate formulations on terrorism accommodate the concerns of various members, without offending any. The essence of a functioning multilateral framework is focusing on shared objectives and underplaying divergences.

Besides expanding opportunities for India in Central Asia, the SCO is a platform for articulating a non-Western — as distinct from anti-Western — perspective on global issues. This includes opposition to selective advocacy of regime change, self-serving homilies on human rights and intrusive advice on domestic policies. It suits India that the SCO is not stridently anti-West in its pronouncements. The U.S. cultivates relations with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to ensure logistical support for its Afghanistan operations and to gradually wean them away from Russian influence. These countries welcome the room for manoeuvre that this gives them. Russia and China also carefully avoid strong anti-West postures in the SCO, preferring to deal with differences quietly and bilaterally.

Balance of forces

The challenge for India — besides that of security and defence cooperation with Pakistan — may come from increasing Chinese dominance of the SCO. This could happen if Russia-U.S. relations worsen further, leading Russia to an even greater dependence on Chinese political and economic support. Another possible game-changer could be the fallout of the much-heralded U.S.-North Korea summit. If, as Mr. Trump has hinted, peace in the Korean peninsula leads to reduced American military presence in the region, it would dramatically change the balance of forces in the Asia-Pacific in favour of China. This would transform Eurasian dynamics, with an inevitable impact on SCO.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23049
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 21 Jun 2018 09:33

India, South Korea to align policies for Southeast Asia - Dinakar Peri, The Hindu
India and South Korea will align their policies for the region during the visit of South Korean President Moon Jae-in to India next month, a senior South Korean diplomat said on Wednesday.

“When President Moon visits New Delhi and holds summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they will link their own initiatives, Modi’s Act East policy and Moon’s New Southern policy. So it will be a very comprehensive one,” said Enna Park, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador for Public Diplomacy of South Korea. She was speaking to the media on the sidelines of a seminar organised by Observer Research Foundation.

Last November, Mr. Moon unveiled the “New Southern policy” aimed at deepening ties with southeast Asia as part of efforts to diversify trade. This complements the Modi government’s Act East Policy of deepening strategic ties with southeast Asian nations.

Stating that the two countries were looking for expanding cooperation in security and defence industries, Ms. Enna said they expect the summit to produce substantial outcomes.

“There are many initiatives to be agreed to at the summit. We are expecting around 20 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) among other outcomes,” she said.

As part of the deepening defence engagement, last year the two countries signed agreements to build artillery guns for the Indian Army and an inter-governmental MoU for defence industry co-operation in shipbuilding.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 24 Jun 2018 11:46

The SCO is a Chinese trap for India as it gives them the opportunity to intervene in Indo-Pak affairs.It is a dangerous membership.India instead has to form its own security apparatus in the Indo-N Pacific with allies, nations concerned about China's military sabre-rattling and who want an alternative to simply ending up as a US vassal too.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 24 Jun 2018 14:05

This lady is a walking disaster and she wants to become PM.

A legend in her own mind and she also suffers from serious delusions of grandeur.

This is what happens when beedi jehadis from local sanctuaries provided by her sing her praises and she believes the hype. The hans, who were also assiduously cultivating her but after this harsh snub causing serious loss of face to the hans, they will jettison her and look for others to prop up in her place.

Cancellation Of China Trip In A Huff By Mamata Banerjee Embarrasses India


Cancellation Of China Trip In A Huff By Mamata Banerjee Embarrasses India

by Jaideep Mazumdar

Jun 23, 2018,


Snapshot
Mamata Banerjee was annoyed when her request to meet senior leaders of Communist Party of China was rejected.


Clearly, there were differences between Banerjee’s perception of her own importance at the national level and how the Chinese perceive her.
India has been left red-faced after Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee cancelled a scheduled trip to China on Friday afternoon, hours before she was to have boarded an aircraft to Beijing. Mamata Banerjee was miffed when it appeared that her request for a meeting with senior leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) would not be granted. She announced the cancellation in a huff through a series of tweets.

The Bengal Chief Minister was to have gone to China on a eight-day visit under an exchange programme between the Government of India and the international department of the CPC. The programme was initiated in 2004. Chief ministers of many other states have visited China under this programme, but this was the first time that a CM asked for a meeting with top CPC office-bearers.

Though no one would come on record, a senior state government official who was involved in the planning of the trip said that Mamata Banerjee insisted on meeting a member of the CPC's Politburo Standing Committee, the apex body of the party which has the Chinese President and Prime Minister among its seven members. Banerjee felt that only a meeting with a member of the CPC’s highest body would be “in keeping with her role in national politics”. She fancies herself as a prime minister-in-waiting or, at least, one who will prop up a future prime minister of the country and, thus, one with a major role in India’s politics. Clearly, the Chinese do not think so.

This is what Mamata Banerjee said through her tweets on Friday:

“In March this year, the Union Minister of External Affairs had recommended to me to kindly consider leading a delegation to China in the coming months under the Exchange Programme of the Government of India with the International Department of the Communist Party of China.

In response, on April 2, 2018, I appreciated her recommendation for me to lead the delegation to China under the Exchange Programme. I mentioned to her that “since the interest of my country is involved, I wish to visit China sometime during last week of June 2018”.

Thereafter, in pursuance of the letters from Chief Secretary and the Ambassador of India in China, a programme was chalked out, based on which we planned our visit in the coming week.

Till yesterday, everything was going on well, but unfortunately, the Chinese side could not confirm the political meetings at appropriate level as informed by our Ambassador in China.

It has now been intimated by our Ambassador in China that the political meetings at the appropriate level under the Exchange Programme could not be confirmed. Therefore, the purpose of my visit with a delegation to China under the Exchange Programme is of no use.

Although our Ambassador in China had tried his best to make the programme a success, non-confirmation of the political meetings at the appropriate level as proposed by the Indian Ambassador to China, at the last moment, has unfortunately compelled us to cancel the visit.

However, I wish the continuation of the friendship of India and China in the days to come and it should strengthen further in the interest of both the countries.”

The Chinese consulate in Kolkata was quick to respond with a cryptic statement: “The Chinese side was working hard to prepare for the CM’s visit and was still working on the arrangements and remained in contact with the Indian Embassy in China when the cancellation was announced”.

Clearly, there were differences between Mamata Banerjee’s perception of her own importance at the national level and how the Chinese perceive her. Her perception of “political meetings at the appropriate level” does not match that of the Chinese, who felt that a politician at the “appropriate level” for Mamata Banerjee would be the Mayor of Beijing who she was reportedly scheduled to meet. The Mayor of Beijing enjoys the same status as the governor of a province in that country and, hence, the Chinese felt it was appropriate to have the Mayor, Chen Jining, meet Mamata Banerjee.

Also, the Chinese are extremely conscious of protocol, and the CPC, say Indian diplomats who have served in that country, is extremely hide-bound and bureaucratic. “Top Chinese leaders, especially the members of the CPC’s politburo standing committee, will never meet the chief minister of a state. They will meet only the Indian Prime Minister, President, Vice-President or, at most, a very important cabinet minister. For that matter, they don’t meet even Governors of states in the US, posts loosely comparable to that of Indian CMs. It was thus unrealistic of the Bengal CM to expect to be granted meetings with the politburo members,” said a serving IFS officer who had done a stint in Beijing a few years ago.

The reason Mamata was sore over China’s reluctance to grant her request was that it put paid to her plans to showcase such a meeting to assert her importance at the national level. Select mediapersons in Kolkata were reportedly briefed by top Trinamool leaders that Mamata Banerjee would be meeting top Chinese leaders who no other visiting chief minister from India had met. “Mamata Banerjee’s plan was to return and tell everyone that she was given a lot more importance by the Chinese than other CMs who had visited that country because the Chinese recognised her importance. When the Chinese refused to play ball, she realised her visit would yield no political dividends back home and so she cancelled it,” said a prominent lawyer and former Trinamool member who was once close to Mamata Banerjee.

Mamata Banerjee’s desire to meet at least one CPC politburo member was conveyed by Bengal Chief Secretary Malay Kumar De to the Ministry of External Affairs. The matter was then taken up with the Chinese foreign ministry by India’s ambassador to China Gautam Bambawale. The Chinese side reportedly told Bambawale that such an unusual request would be difficult to consider. “We did try to persuade the Chinese to schedule even a short meeting with a Politburo member, but that did not happen. Even on Friday morning (Bengal Chief Secretary) Malay De requested foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale to intervene with the Chinese, and our ambassador was in contact with the Chinese foreign office till Friday afternoon. But Beijing didn’t want to break protocol,” said a senior officer in the South Block. Mamata Banerjee, say some officials in Kolkata, was reportedly ready to settle for a meeting with Chinese Vice-President Wang Qishan, but that also could not be arranged.

Banerjee was to have also met CEOs of major Chinese companies in Beijing and then in Shanghai. The business meet at Shanghai slated for 28 June was being organised jointly by the Bengal government, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) and the China Council for Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT). A few prominent industrialists from Bengal were scheduled to be present at these business meets with Chinese CEOs, where Mamata Banerjee was to have made a strong pitch for Chinese investments in her state.

The cancellation of the trip has severely embarrassed South Block mandarins. “A lot of work goes in to arrange such official visits. The prestige of the country is also involved and protocol is strictly followed. A visiting dignitary cannot make an unreasonable or unusual request that would be a departure from the protocol of the host country and expect to be humoured. The unilateral cancellation of such a visit, and the way it was announced through a series of tweets, is very embarrassing for us and has never happened before. Even if the Bengal CM was unhappy and wanted to cancel her visit, she should have conveyed heer decision to us (the MEA) and we would have informed the Chinese. That is the way things work. And both sides could have then come up with a mutually acceptable reason for the visit being cancelled. The cancellation of the visit unilaterally by the Bengal CM and the way it was announced also embarrassed the Chinese,” said the serving IFS officer at the MEA.

What South Block did not take into account, however, was Mamata Banerjee’s whimsical and mercurial nature and her propensity to fly into a rage if things don’t work her way.

Jaideep Mazumdar is an associate editor at Swarajya.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 24 Jun 2018 14:17

MEA must move beyond Nehruvian past




MEA must move beyond Nehruvian past

Ravi Shanker Kapoor
June 23, 2018,

Our foreign office must perceive the machinations of pinkish UN tsars and discern the pattern in UN actions.


John O’Sullivan, a British conservative commentator, has a law named after him. O’Sullivan’s First Law says: “All organisations that are not actually Rightwing will over time become Leftwing.” The United Nations has obeyed the law. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report on Kashmir shows the intensity of transmogrification the world body has undergone.

Its lies and deception—the report refers to terror outfits as “armed groups”—have been widely commented upon in the media. India has rightly trashed it as “fallacious, tendentious and motivated”. But what foreign policy mandarins and experts have missed is the most critical point: the report is part of the Left-liberal enterprise, supported by Islamist and jihad-compliant forces, to malign democratic nations and peddle moral equivalence. Worse, India itself has often played into the hands of such forces.

Consider this: On 13 June, India voted in favour of a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution, proposed by Turkey and Algeria, condemning the use of allegedly “excessive” force by Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians in what the UN calls “Occupied Palestinian Territory”. At the same time, it abstained on a US-backed amendment aimed at denouncing violence by Hamas. The latter resolution fell through.

Our foreign office must do more to perceive the machinations of pinkish UN tsars; it must discern the pattern in UN actions; it needs to comprehend the thread running through most UN statements and resolutions. The truth is that the UN relentlessly badgers democracies (especially Israel and the US), turns a blind eye to the worst human rights offenders like Saudi Arabia and China, and peddles moral equivalence.

Anti-Americanism is rampant globally; liberal media and Left-leaning academia intensify it every day. But if India aspires to become a power to reckon with, as it does, it has to do better than follow the herd. It should know how to protect its national interest; and before that, it should know what its national interest is.

India can’t expect the US to goad Pakistan to rein in its jihadist puppets while supporting anti-Israel resolutions and remaining neutral on Washington-sponsored ones. And it’s not just realpolitik; it is also problematic to maintain neutrality over the crimes of Hamas, which is an Islamist body. And it would be presumptuous on the part of India to expect meaningful and heartfelt cooperation from Israel in a war against global jihad while persisting with the Nehru era phraseology.

On the anti-Israel resolution, US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley said before the vote: “This resolution holds Hamas completely unaccountable for most of the recent unrest. It blames everything on Israel. But the facts tell a different story. It is Hamas and its allies that have fired over a hundred rockets into Israel in the past month, hoping to cause death to as many civilians and as much destruction as possible. It is Hamas that has used Palestinian civilians as human shields at the boundary fence, seeking to incite violence and overrun the border. It is Hamas that refuses to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority to unite in the pursuit of peace. It is Hamas that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel within any borders. And yet the resolution before us not only fails to blame Hamas for these actions, it fails to even mention Hamas.”

Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon was equally scathing on the resolution: “By supporting this resolution, you are colluding with a terrorist organisation and empowering Hamas.” But this is exactly what India, and scores of other countries, did.

The UN Human Rights Commission’s report on Kashmir should be scrutinised against such a backdrop; like the UNGA resolution and several other activities, it is also a joint venture between the Left-liberal grandees and Islamists. Their objectives are common: smear democracies (and downplay gross human rights violations in places like Muslim countries), instil guilt among politicians and people in democracies (and thus undermine their resolve to combat terror), and disseminate moral equivalence (so that security personnel and terrorists become “two sides” in conflict.)

The resolutions at the UNGA are designed with expert care to make military and paramilitary commanders of Israel think twice before acting against jihadists. The US administration of Donald Trump is under pressure from the media and other opinion makers (who are the ideological brethren of UN bosses) to adopt appeasement policies. Similarly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ report on Kashmir becomes an inhibiting factor for the officers of Army and paramilitary forces.

It is unfortunate if our foreign policymakers miss the thread of the narrative that Left-liberals and Islamists together are spreading all over the world. The MEA must realise the true nature of the UN and of national interest. It must avoid the knee-jerk, pro-forma reactions of the Nehruvian past



Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19619
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 24 Jun 2018 20:33

I'm not a fan of Mamta, but her snub is exactly what the sh*try Chins deserve.You cannot invite someone and have an unplanned agenda and schedule.Would PM Modi accept such a situ? There are very clear international diplomatic protocols which almost all nations strictly observe.The Chins wooing of Mamta is becos they've dramatically lost influence in Bengal after the rout of the CPM.But she does not need Chin overt or covert support as she has her own diehard fan club.

Remember that the entire security of the NEast of India is dependent upon the springboard and pivot of Bengal.Whoever controls the state has a vital responsibility in the defence of India.With the pro- Chin CPM in power earlier, one could not rule out 5th columnists within the state govt. working on China's behalf in a crisis.Mamta's prime ministerial ambitions,or at least the convenor of a united opposition against the BJP , a prime mover and shaker in Indian politics,for the Chins has to be cultivated and ultimately seduced to adopting a pro- Chinese stance in both bilateral and international affairs.

I am surprised that her tantrum and snub is being read as an embarrassment to India. It is the Chinese who should be embarrassed!

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Trikaal » 24 Jun 2018 23:17

Philip wrote:
I am surprised that her tantrum and snub is being read as an embarrassment to India. It is the Chinese who should be embarrassed!

It's not her snub. It's her immature that is being considered an embarrassment. This visit was a symbolic thing, to improve appreciation of each other's government structure. Mamta's plan, and then her spectacular failure, is an embarrassment. Our leaders are more interested in scoring brownie points than present a united front to an adversary.

Dumal
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Dumal » 25 Jun 2018 06:34

Philip wrote:You cannot invite someone and have an unplanned agenda and schedule.Would PM Modi accept such a situ? There are very clear international diplomatic protocols which almost all nations strictly observe.


Nice strawman and some empty arguments around it! How did you figure the agenda and schedule were unplanned? Except for the confirmation of meeting with a CPC member, which would have been unlikely given the "strictly observed diplomatic protocols", all else would have been sewed up fully well in advance. That is what the articles imply as well.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3150
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Kakkaji » 25 Jun 2018 07:30

When Mamata went to the UK a couple of years ago, the Brits allowed her to meet Prince Andrew for a few minutes. Mamata had set her sights much higher, and came back disappointed.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 965
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby yensoy » 25 Jun 2018 08:35

Actually in this one instance I am thrilled with the turn of events. She is showing the Chinese that straitjacketed thinking won't work when it comes to India. She certainly has delusions of grandeur. If the Chinese were smart, they would pander her, even prop her as a viable next PM candidate (and that would have ticked us off much more). She didn't say that the Ambassador sabotaged her visit (it would have been a great opportunity for her to settle scores with the GoI). The Ambassador did what he had to, passed the message that the visitor wanted to see someone higher in the hierarchy (as he should, in a free country where the elected representatives have power). It's just lovely the way it happened, best of all the cancellation was done on Twitter. I hope they sent a hard copy to the Chinese as well, since Twitter is blocked in China.

Really this incident is just too awesome all around. What's the downside? The Chinese will cancel their visitors program? Ha ha

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 25 Jun 2018 16:55

yensoy wrote:Actually in this one instance I am thrilled with the turn of events. She is showing the Chinese that straitjacketed thinking won't work when it comes to India. She certainly has delusions of grandeur. If the Chinese were smart, they would pander her, even prop her as a viable next PM candidate (and that would have ticked us off much more). She didn't say that the Ambassador sabotaged her visit (it would have been a great opportunity for her to settle scores with the GoI). The Ambassador did what he had to, passed the message that the visitor wanted to see someone higher in the hierarchy (as he should, in a free country where the elected representatives have power). It's just lovely the way it happened, best of all the cancellation was done on Twitter. I hope they sent a hard copy to the Chinese as well, since Twitter is blocked in China.

Really this incident is just too awesome all around. What's the downside? The Chinese will cancel their visitors program? Ha ha


the lady is a complete idiot.

She was no one to cancel the visit. It is not her domain.

If she did not want to go she should have informed the MEA and thereafter shut up. It was not in her authority to tweet the cancellation as though she was running the GoI singlehandedly.

And our hawai chappal aunty demands a meeting with a member of the chinese politburo??

For what??, to sell him her famous "paintings" ??

No other previous delegation head, meaning other CMs, has ever asked for such a meeting.

This lady is slyly but very obviously setting up for the 2019 elections. In bengal, every kid knows what a politburo member is.

In her haste to get to the PMs chair, she is betraying her true colors and displaying her undoubtedly meager abilities and the repeated propensity for really bad behavior.

The MEA would have worked out a plausible reason for the change of delegation head in consultation with the hans and would have in all likelihood rescheduled the visit with another, saner delegation head.

The entire visit was already planned right down to the last detail. Her ludicrous demand of meeting with a politburo head was a dubious personal add-on from her side. It is extremely bad manners to treat another country like this and that too by some regional nut case. Even if she ever became the PM, this is what she would do, a dunderheaded loose cannon on the perpetual rampage.

The burnol moment for all the others that really riles them up, especially the lootyens and the presstitute lot, is the fact that Modi is well respected and well received the world over. His diplomatic finesse is unquestionable and so are his dealings with world leaders. Modi has clearly upstaged MMS and even JLN, even though no one will admit it. That's why all of them are working overtime to try and pull him down wherever possible, even making up false stories to do it

The same pakis, who cursed Modi for years and still do and the same pakis who are his greatest enemies are now simply in awe of his abilities, his simplicity, his political acumen, work ethics, his diplomatic successes and above all his lifelong incorruptibility.

There is a palpable fear among the paki press and the paki establishment that Modi has left them far behind and they have lost the perception battle throughout the world, and he has even upstaged them in many muslin countries.

This is the guy that the bengal CM is going to take on diplomatically??


On a state visit to singapore, modi ate a meal at a fairly ordinary Indian restaurant along with his host.

It takes really big balls to do this as the PM of a rising global power like India.

No chinese PM/president will ever dare to do such a thing and neither will the status conscious CM of bengal.

Image
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, PM Lee Hsien Loong and Ms Ho Ching (hidden) having their simple meal at Indian vegetarian restaurant Komala Vilas,

as opposed to a setting something like this being the usual standard for a state visit

Image

sanjayc
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 22 Aug 2016 21:40

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby sanjayc » 25 Jun 2018 20:15

India and Seychelles agree on naval base at Assumption Island

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 731817.cms

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Trikaal » 25 Jun 2018 20:24

No firm commitment, only agreement to work together.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby souravB » 25 Jun 2018 20:30

Apologies for interjecting between a convo but my inexperience urges me to ask the Gurus
This Didi fiasco, could we have used it to show that an elected CM of India is not less in stature than their politburo member?
this is not about simplicity, but it is the representation of people during an official visit.
or from this day forward, expect for the Premier, can we also send a junior under secretary for other politburo members?
Constitutionally a CM does come in 50(or 60) most important people in our country. However she might be but she does represent approx 90 millions of our own.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 25 Jun 2018 20:58

souravB wrote:Apologies for interjecting between a convo but my inexperience urges me to ask the Gurus
This Didi fiasco, could we have used it to show that an elected CM of India is not less in stature than their politburo member?
this is not about simplicity, but it is the representation of people during an official visit.
or from this day forward, expect for the Premier, can we also send a junior under secretary for other politburo members?
Constitutionally a CM does come in 50(or 60) most important people in our country. However she might be but she does represent approx 90 millions of our own.



do you remember the days when every tom dick and harry senator and his chaprasi sidekick from the US coming to India for their piles treatment would casually drop into MMS's office without fail?? They were never refused. What did it say about MMS??

Let's assume that some undersecretary from the US consulate did call and make the appointment. Why did MMS agree?? Didn't he have enough work to do??

At that time many US officials had the right to enter directly the operational areas of Indian airports without a security check.

WOULD THEY EVER LET INDIAN OFFICIALS DO THAT IN THE US??

Didn't they do a physical check on Ex President APJ Abdul Kalam at some US airport when he went there for a visit?? Even though he was traveling on an Indian Diplomatic passport?? and he identified himself to them??

That was done to show utter contempt for the Indian system. WTF would they have discussed with MMS anyway??

Would the reverse have worked if any Indian parliamentarian joker would have popped in to see the POTUS?? Would it work even today??

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby souravB » 25 Jun 2018 21:26

chetak wrote:do you remember the days when every tom dick and harry senator and his chaprasi sidekick from the US coming to India for their piles treatment would casually drop into MMS's office without fail?? They were never refused. What did it say about MMS??

Let's assume that some undersecretary from the US consulate did call and make the appointment. Why did he agree?? Didn't he have enough work to do??

At that time many US officials had the right to enter directly the operational areas of Indian airports without a security check.

WOULD THEY EVER LET INDIAN OFFICIALS DO THAT IN THE US??

Didn't they do a physical check on Ex President APJ Abdul Kalam at some US airport when he went there for a visit?? Even though he was traveling on an Indian Diplomatic passport?? and he identified himself to them??

That was done to show utter contempt for the Indian system. WTF would they have discussed with MMS anyway??

Would the reverse have worked if any Indian parliamentarian joker would have popped in to see the POTUS?? Would it work even today??

I don't remember cause I was busy watching FTV hiding from my parents.. (yes I am that young and inexperienced) :D
but jokes aside, I didn't understand how the above scenario is relevant to the current situation. My query was based on how we could have handled the situation and supported our own.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 25 Jun 2018 21:44

souravB wrote:
chetak wrote:do you remember the days when every tom dick and harry senator and his chaprasi sidekick from the US coming to India for their piles treatment would casually drop into MMS's office without fail?? They were never refused. What did it say about MMS??

Let's assume that some undersecretary from the US consulate did call and make the appointment. Why did he agree?? Didn't he have enough work to do??

At that time many US officials had the right to enter directly the operational areas of Indian airports without a security check.

WOULD THEY EVER LET INDIAN OFFICIALS DO THAT IN THE US??

Didn't they do a physical check on Ex President APJ Abdul Kalam at some US airport when he went there for a visit?? Even though he was traveling on an Indian Diplomatic passport?? and he identified himself to them??

That was done to show utter contempt for the Indian system. WTF would they have discussed with MMS anyway??

Would the reverse have worked if any Indian parliamentarian joker would have popped in to see the POTUS?? Would it work even today??

I don't remember cause I was busy watching FTV hiding from my parents.. (yes I am that young and inexperienced) :D
but jokes aside, I didn't understand how the above scenario is relevant to the current situation. My query was based on how we could have handled the situation and supported our own.


Nobody is joking, friend.

just because we let it happen, doesn't mean that the chinese are going to.

why would anyone support a loose cannon??

what about the time our great commie led "parliamentarians" signed a joint letter to the US govt asking them not to give Modi a visa??

Would "parliamentarians" from any other country in the world have done something like that to their own country man??

I sometimes think that we have too much of democracy in India for nut cases to behave like this, putting narrow personal interests above that of their own country.

Trikaal
BRFite
Posts: 499
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 08:01

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Trikaal » 26 Jun 2018 01:32

chetak wrote:
I sometimes think that we have too much of democracy in India for nut cases to behave like this, putting narrow personal interests above that of their own country.

Democracy isn't at fault here. It's we the people who are responsible for this. As long as politicians don't suffer electoral losses for anti india behavior, they won't care much. In US, even a perception of being anti-US can be very damaging politically, just ask Hillary Clinton(Benghazi). Sadly, most of our voters are happy with free drinks and othee freebies.

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby souravB » 26 Jun 2018 02:36

chetak wrote:
Nobody is joking, friend.

just because we let it happen, doesn't mean that the chinese are going to.

why would anyone support a loose cannon??

what about the time our great commie led "parliamentarians" signed a joint letter to the US govt asking them not to give Modi a visa??

Would "parliamentarians" from any other country in the world have done something like that to their own country man??

I sometimes think that we have too much of democracy in India for nut cases to behave like this, putting narrow personal interests above that of their own country.

I personally feel the commies have never been loyal to any country. They have their share of blood on their hands. Nowadays they are more aggressive than the right wing.
But does that mean a sensible government should stoop to their level? wouldn't this bickering just help the other person?
Now onto the issue at hand, shouldn't the MEA react a bit more strongly to show that one must not take our constitutionally elected leader and in turn constitution lightly?

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 26 Jun 2018 04:17

souravB wrote:
chetak wrote:
Nobody is joking, friend.

just because we let it happen, doesn't mean that the chinese are going to.

why would anyone support a loose cannon??

what about the time our great commie led "parliamentarians" signed a joint letter to the US govt asking them not to give Modi a visa??

Would "parliamentarians" from any other country in the world have done something like that to their own country man??

I sometimes think that we have too much of democracy in India for nut cases to behave like this, putting narrow personal interests above that of their own country.

I personally feel the commies have never been loyal to any country. They have their share of blood on their hands. Nowadays they are more aggressive than the right wing.
But does that mean a sensible government should stoop to their level? wouldn't this bickering just help the other person?
Now onto the issue at hand, shouldn't the MEA react a bit more strongly to show that one must not take our constitutionally elected leader and in turn constitution lightly?


I think that sleeping dogs are best left to lie peacefully.

It was not only the commies who signed that letter to obama but a total of 64 MPS did representing many parties.

Did this lady support Modi then or even object to such a letter??

Wasn't Modi constitutionally elected as Gujarat CM ??

Isn't he a leader??

Where was "our" MEA then??

Where was "our" constitution then?? has anybody asked??

Why is the burden to act on the govt when some crazy person acted like an idiot??

She had no authority to call off the visit, and yet she did so publicly. Her intentions were not honorable and the national interest did not determine her actions as much as her own personal interest did and does not merit further discussion.

She has no standing to demand a meeting with some or any politburo member and yet she did. and the chinese did not agree with her assessment of her own importance so they did not say yes or no, they just kept quiet. Was this clear message so very hard to read?? She was, after all, going as an ambassador of India and a modicum of diplomacy was the least that was expected of her.

She tried to bargain her way into some meeting with anyone who may have accommodated her, proving to everyone that she did not have anything at all to say but merely wanted the meeting as a slyly disguised photo op to hold up as some sort of a triumphant trophy of the "successful" visit.

I think that a lot of embassies in dilli would have taken note and will be cautious in dealing with such people in the future.

I am also certain that invitations will not come pouring in for this lady to visit foreign countries.

It is time to move on from this useless topic.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby dinesha » 26 Jun 2018 14:36

India, Seychelles agree to work on naval base project, respect mutual concerns
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 734569.cms

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2018 01:31

souravB wrote:Apologies for interjecting between a convo but my inexperience urges me to ask the Gurus
This Didi fiasco, could we have used it to show that an elected CM of India is not less in stature than their politburo member?
this is not about simplicity, but it is the representation of people during an official visit.
or from this day forward, expect for the Premier, can we also send a junior under secretary for other politburo members?
Constitutionally a CM does come in 50(or 60) most important people in our country. However she might be but she does represent approx 90 millions of our own.


From what I read that Politburo member is a Vice President of China. While Didi (who blocks me on Twitter) is equivalent to Provincial head in China.
So it really was about protocol.
The demand to meet him was not proper.
Should have let the diplomats handle it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2018 01:34

dinesha wrote:India, Seychelles agree to work on naval base project, respect mutual concerns
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 734569.cms



Guess this puts paid to the canard about declining relations.

BTW Livefist/Shiv Aroor says India gifted a Dornier to Seychelles today.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2018 01:34

Anyone note Nikki Haley is in Delhi?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50597
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 27 Jun 2018 01:46

chetak wrote:This lady is a walking disaster and she wants to become PM.

A legend in her own mind and she also suffers from serious delusions of grandeur.

This is what happens when beedi jehadis from local sanctuaries provided by her sing her praises and she believes the hype. The hans, who were also assiduously cultivating her but after this harsh snub causing serious loss of face to the hans, they will jettison her and look for others to prop up in her place.

Cancellation Of China Trip In A Huff By Mamata Banerjee Embarrasses India


Cancellation Of China Trip In A Huff By Mamata Banerjee Embarrasses India

by Jaideep Mazumdar

Jun 23, 2018,


Snapshot
Mamata Banerjee was annoyed when her request to meet senior leaders of Communist Party of China was rejected.


Clearly, there were differences between Banerjee’s perception of her own importance at the national level and how the Chinese perceive her.
India has been left red-faced after Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee cancelled a scheduled trip to China on Friday afternoon, hours before she was to have boarded an aircraft to Beijing. Mamata Banerjee was miffed when it appeared that her request for a meeting with senior leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC) would not be granted. She announced the cancellation in a huff through a series of tweets.

The Bengal Chief Minister was to have gone to China on a eight-day visit under an exchange programme between the Government of India and the international department of the CPC. The programme was initiated in 2004. Chief ministers of many other states have visited China under this programme, but this was the first time that a CM asked for a meeting with top CPC office-bearers.


Though no one would come on record, a senior state government official who was involved in the planning of the trip said that Mamata Banerjee insisted on meeting a member of the CPC's Politburo Standing Committee, the apex body of the party which has the Chinese President and Prime Minister among its seven members. Banerjee felt that only a meeting with a member of the CPC’s highest body would be “in keeping with her role in national politics”. She fancies herself as a prime minister-in-waiting or, at least, one who will prop up a future prime minister of the country and, thus, one with a major role in India’s politics. Clearly, the Chinese do not think so.

This is what Mamata Banerjee said through her tweets on Friday:

“In March this year, the Union Minister of External Affairs had recommended to me to kindly consider leading a delegation to China in the coming months under the Exchange Programme of the Government of India with the International Department of the Communist Party of China.

In response, on April 2, 2018, I appreciated her recommendation for me to lead the delegation to China under the Exchange Programme. I mentioned to her that “since the interest of my country is involved, I wish to visit China sometime during last week of June 2018”.

Thereafter, in pursuance of the letters from Chief Secretary and the Ambassador of India in China, a programme was chalked out, based on which we planned our visit in the coming week.

Till yesterday, everything was going on well, but unfortunately, the Chinese side could not confirm the political meetings at appropriate level as informed by our Ambassador in China.

It has now been intimated by our Ambassador in China that the political meetings at the appropriate level under the Exchange Programme could not be confirmed. Therefore, the purpose of my visit with a delegation to China under the Exchange Programme is of no use.

Although our Ambassador in China had tried his best to make the programme a success, non-confirmation of the political meetings at the appropriate level as proposed by the Indian Ambassador to China, at the last moment, has unfortunately compelled us to cancel the visit.

However, I wish the continuation of the friendship of India and China in the days to come and it should strengthen further in the interest of both the countries.” :(( :(( :((

The Chinese consulate in Kolkata was quick to respond with a cryptic statement: “The Chinese side was working hard to prepare for the CM’s visit and was still working on the arrangements and remained in contact with the Indian Embassy in China when the cancellation was announced”.

Clearly, there were differences between Mamata Banerjee’s perception of her own importance at the national level and how the Chinese perceive her. Her perception of “political meetings at the appropriate level” does not match that of the Chinese, who felt that a politician at the “appropriate level” for Mamata Banerjee would be the Mayor of Beijing who she was reportedly scheduled to meet. The Mayor of Beijing enjoys the same status as the governor of a province in that country and, hence, the Chinese felt it was appropriate to have the Mayor, Chen Jining, meet Mamata Banerjee.

Also, the Chinese are extremely conscious of protocol, and the CPC, say Indian diplomats who have served in that country, is extremely hide-bound and bureaucratic. “Top Chinese leaders, especially the members of the CPC’s politburo standing committee, will never meet the chief minister of a state. They will meet only the Indian Prime Minister, President, Vice-President or, at most, a very important cabinet minister. For that matter, they don’t meet even Governors of states in the US, posts loosely comparable to that of Indian CMs. It was thus unrealistic of the Bengal CM to expect to be granted meetings with the politburo members,” said a serving IFS officer who had done a stint in Beijing a few years ago.

The reason Mamata was sore over China’s reluctance to grant her request was that it put paid to her plans to showcase such a meeting to assert her importance at the national level. Select mediapersons in Kolkata were reportedly briefed by top Trinamool leaders that Mamata Banerjee would be meeting top Chinese leaders who no other visiting chief minister from India had met. “Mamata Banerjee’s plan was to return and tell everyone that she was given a lot more importance by the Chinese than other CMs who had visited that country because the Chinese recognised her importance. When the Chinese refused to play ball, she realised her visit would yield no political dividends back home and so she cancelled it,” said a prominent lawyer and former Trinamool member who was once close to Mamata Banerjee.

Mamata Banerjee’s desire to meet at least one CPC politburo member was conveyed by Bengal Chief Secretary Malay Kumar De to the Ministry of External Affairs. The matter was then taken up with the Chinese foreign ministry by India’s ambassador to China Gautam Bambawale. The Chinese side reportedly told Bambawale that such an unusual request would be difficult to consider. “We did try to persuade the Chinese to schedule even a short meeting with a Politburo member, but that did not happen. Even on Friday morning (Bengal Chief Secretary) Malay De requested foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale to intervene with the Chinese, and our ambassador was in contact with the Chinese foreign office till Friday afternoon. But Beijing didn’t want to break protocol,” said a senior officer in the South Block. Mamata Banerjee, say some officials in Kolkata, was reportedly ready to settle for a meeting with Chinese Vice-President Wang Qishan, but that also could not be arranged.
:rotfl:

Banerjee was to have also met CEOs of major Chinese companies in Beijing and then in Shanghai. The business meet at Shanghai slated for 28 June was being organised jointly by the Bengal government, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) and the China Council for Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT). A few prominent industrialists from Bengal were scheduled to be present at these business meets with Chinese CEOs, where Mamata Banerjee was to have made a strong pitch for Chinese investments in her state.

The cancellation of the trip has severely embarrassed South Block mandarins. “A lot of work goes in to arrange such official visits. The prestige of the country is also involved and protocol is strictly followed. A visiting dignitary cannot make an unreasonable or unusual request that would be a departure from the protocol of the host country and expect to be humoured. The unilateral cancellation of such a visit, and the way it was announced through a series of tweets, is very embarrassing for us and has never happened before. Even if the Bengal CM was unhappy and wanted to cancel her visit, she should have conveyed her decision to us (the MEA) and we would have informed the Chinese. That is the way things work. And both sides could have then come up with a mutually acceptable reason for the visit being cancelled. The cancellation of the visit unilaterally by the Bengal CM and the way it was announced also embarrassed the Chinese,” said the serving IFS officer at the MEA.

What South Block did not take into account, however, was Mamata Banerjee’s whimsical and mercurial nature and her propensity to fly into a rage if things don’t work her way.

Jaideep Mazumdar is an associate editor at Swarajya.


It confirms she is loose cannon. She was politicizing her investment visit to Shanghai.
Now only Bengal suffers just like when she kicked out Tatas.


When she could not meet a Politburo member she wants to meet the Chinese VP!!!!

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby souravB » 27 Jun 2018 02:33

ramana wrote:
souravB wrote:Apologies for interjecting between a convo but my inexperience urges me to ask the Gurus
This Didi fiasco, could we have used it to show that an elected CM of India is not less in stature than their politburo member?
this is not about simplicity, but it is the representation of people during an official visit.
or from this day forward, expect for the Premier, can we also send a junior under secretary for other politburo members?
Constitutionally a CM does come in 50(or 60) most important people in our country. However she might be but she does represent approx 90 millions of our own.


From what I read that Politburo member is a Vice President of China. While Didi (who blocks me on Twitter) is equivalent to Provincial head in China.
So it really was about protocol.
The demand to meet him was not proper.
Should have let the diplomats handle it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China
politburo of China has 25 members which includes the top echelon of power. Could be Vice president or a cabinet minister. but I digress.
my point was whatever be the reason behind her bizarre demand or even how bizarre she behaved, it was a chance for India to send a firm message that the constitution of India and in extension a constitutional post is not something you should take lightly.
Didi in her infinite inanity had given GoI a chance to show China that we will not go soft on you diplomatically and we will measure each and every gesture from you.
instead people started collecting political brownie points. that is where my contention was, GoI missed a chance to show the finger.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16448
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Rahul M » 27 Jun 2018 03:11

souravB Indian diplomats tried their best and failed, as was expected.

what you dont seem to understand is that the ball wasn't in our court, their country, their protocols ; as long as our protocols are not violated. no one was taking a constitutional post lightly, MB was trying to make it heavier than it is.

>>GoI missed a chance to show the finger.
and do what exactly ?
in any case if we ask PRC to break protocol, it is up to them whether they agree. even in the unlikely case they did, diplomacy runs on reciprocity and tomorrow they could well have sent some junior minister and expected Modi to meet him.

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1057
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby dinesha » 27 Jun 2018 13:23

Raja Mandala: Falling Behind on Digital Silk Road
https://carnegieindia.org/2018/06/19/ra ... -pub-76663

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6379
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby habal » 28 Jun 2018 22:50

MB expects to be next PM, (of non-NDA govt), so she was asking for more leeway. She thinks now that chinese are not betting on her chances of becoming PM, that pissed her.

Parasu
BRFite
Posts: 235
Joined: 04 Dec 2017 14:18

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Parasu » 29 Jun 2018 01:16

I read a report in march which said all things have been sorted out wrt COMCASA and only political will is left to sign or not to sign. Now we hear negotiations are back. Comcasa is back etc etc.
If India doesnt sign COMCASA, that probably means India is going back into non-alignment 2.0.
Or Modi may be buying time and pushing off Americans till 2019 elections. Alternatively Modi could sign Comcasa on his Washington visit later this year.

"Modi became the first Indian PM to miss the NAM summit in 2016, the same year
India signed LEMOA with US. But changing US positions on issues vital to Indian interests
seems to be prompting a rethink. Between April and May 2018, PM Modi visited both China
and Russia in quick succession. The visits were unplanned, informal and likely the result of
Indian initiative. They have been followed by conciliatory and friendly statements by relevant
parties. Since the informal summits, the defence minister, prime minister and president of
India have repeatedly reiterated their commitment to multi-polarity and strategic autonomy.
India has also stated publicly that its relations with Russia are not negotiable. "

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21977
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Austin » 30 Jun 2018 12:01

India’s foreign relations are in tatters and the Modi government has only itself to blame

Modi’s diplomatic ‘conquests’ are history and India’s foreign relations resemble a train-wreck. Here’s how government’s missteps have broken its own momentum.

India’s external and strategic environment is looking like a train-wreck and it isn’t just to do with the American humiliation of “postponing” the vaunted “two-plus-two” dialogue for the third time.

The picture today has no resemblance to what we saw until about a year earlier. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was then hopping from one capital to another, hugging heads of states. India was a rising power and Modi, its powerful, extroverted, energetic new leader, a star. He wowed the world with his decisive, and positive intervention on the Paris climate deal, for example.

Much of this has unravelled over the past six months. India’s decline from global consciousness has been as rude as its rise was steady and smooth.

Modi supporters will protest. But, while political partisans can be delusional, a nation, with pretensions of great power status, can’t duck reality. We need to examine why a great forward march has fizzled out of gas. Some factors are beyond India’s control, such as a Black Swan event like the rise of Donald Trump. At the same time, recent pro-active blunders have made India’s external relations a man-made disaster.

Leaders bring their preferred approach to diplomacy. The Modi enthusiasts in South Block celebrate the fact that his style of diplomacy is transactional. This is also endorsed in the BJP and sections of the strategic community friendly to it, which is nearly all of it today barring the odd, brave sceptic. As a consequence, we spent the first three years of his government celebrating one “great diplomatic victory” after another. India was admitted to three global missile-nuclear technology groupings as a responsible power. The American policy in the subcontinent was fully dehyphenated. A strategic relationship looked a reality. India’s external environment had been improving since Bill Clinton’s second term. Policy continuity, fuelled by 15 years of economic growth, had set the direction. Modi, with his energy, personal style and a full majority accelerated it nicely. What threw the train off the rails?

Two external negatives were not the Modi government’s fault: The rise of Trump and a new Chinese assertion. Trump’s actions, particularly the change in Iran policy directly led to rising oil prices, destabilising India’s domestic economy and politics. The Chinese push for CPEC, unmindful of Indian concerns, and its moves in Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives and Bangladesh showed that China is no longer willing to leave the subcontinent as a zone of India’s pre-eminence. The days when a George W. Bush could speak to Hu Jintao on the phone to get India an NSG waiver are over. Xi won’t listen, but more importantly, Trump won’t do it. Because, if Modi is transactional, Trump is more so.

The Modi government’s greatest blunder is to exploit sensitive external relations in its domestic politics. The first essential attribute of successful leaders in history is strategic patience. They move firmly, but never get so committed publicly as to deny themselves room for manoeuvre, front, back, sideways. In building strategic relations, the best leaders bat like Sunil Gavaskar, not Virender Sehwag. Modi has left himself no such room.

In all major state election campaigns he made his foreign policy “conquests” the centre-piece, and it worked. But there are perils in declaring victory too soon. It narrows your strategic space. Instead of keeping quiet as the past governments did, it made one set of local, tactical and limited “surgical” raids into a feat rivalling the securing of Siachen in the spring of 1984. Indira Gandhi never even whispered about it. And she wasn’t stupid or apolitical.

If you use tactical actions for immediate political benefit, you close your options going ahead. Worse, your enemies know that. Encouraged by the popular response in the Uttar Pradesh elections, it led to much irresponsible loose talk around the establishment that some such action, albeit on a much larger scale later in 2018, could swing national elections. A short, sharp skirmish you could end by declaring victory. With Doklam, and subsequent moves, an alarmed China made it clear that it won’t let India flex its military muscle beyond a point. It’s left no doubt that Pakistan is under its protection now.

Similar misjudgements were made on trade. Radical controls on prices of medical devices especially stents were made a part of election discourse. It closed your options when Trump, even more transactional, reacted. His fight for lower duties over Harley Davidson bikes is hilarious. But a handful of large engine bikes are sold in India and no Indian manufacturer is threatened by these imports. You could have given the man-child of White House this little victory, brought in direct subsidies for the poor on stents instead of sweeping price controls and salvaged the situation. You can’t do it when you make economic nationalism central to your politics. Definitely not when India’s economy has slowed, unable to recover from demonetisation. India has squandered the clout a decade of near-8 per cent growth had given it.

The most poorly kept secret in diplomatic circles is the terrible meeting Modi and Trump had in Manila on 13 November 2017. Not only did Trump’s behaviour and body language lack his earlier warmth, his conduct bordered on being disrespectful. This came on top of his leaked videos mocking Modi’s manner of speaking. Then Trump hit India on trade. It coincided with British action on visas. It hurts when you’ve been hailing the rising respect for the Indian passport as your big achievement.

It is risky to keep punching above your weight, as India has been lately. You have to be cautious, not reckless, egged on by a Boswellian media, commentariat and unquestioning think tanks. Self-congratulation is a most tempting trap you set for yourself. For four years India has been celebrating becoming a “natural strategic ally” of the US, but has let its military decline. You can’t plan high strategy while your military remains tactical, border defence oriented.

Four years have effectively seen four defence ministers, the current one being an ineffectual photo-op caricature. Our military pensions budget will exceed the salary budget in two years and both are already way above the capital budget. This is a baroque, bulky, outdated military power, not a nifty, punchy, strategic one. You can celebrate the Americans declaring the Asia-Pacific as Indo-Pacific, but you won’t carry strategic weight merely by sending a couple of ships to a fancy allied navies’ exercise. The Chinese make three warships per year. We struggle to make one in three and still take a couple more to fit missiles and sensors on it. After much noise over Make in India and private sector, our achievement is a big cipher. You can throw stuff at me for saying this, but the world knows it. It won’t stop laughing.

Declining military might is compounded by economic slowdown. You can fool your people by changing how you calculate your GDP. It becomes dangerous when you start believing it. There has been breathless talk of the rise of India, of how the world looks up to us for wisdom and direction, that Yoga Day has now become a global celebration of Indian soft power and spirituality to rival Christmas. Watch that speech by RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat (at the Pranab Mukherjee event) where he triumphantly declared India is on its way to becoming a Vishwaguru (teacher of the world).

Why then is our relationship with our “best, all-weather friend” America on decline, all neighbours in the Chinese embrace, and, barring Bangladesh, hostile and suspicious? How can Trump dare to be boorish with the prime minister of this Vishwaguru? How can Nikki Haley, who’s really not such a somebody in the Trump administration, come to India and order it to change its Iran policy? And check how Modi’s body language has changed in his engagement with Xi. How long has it been since Indian leaders stopped protesting that CPEC is passing through Indian territory in PoK?

It’s time to stop breathless celebration. It will be wiser to take a deep breath, make a reality check, and introspect.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17639
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 30 Jun 2018 14:00

@Austin ^^^^^^^

"padma shri" coupta is a well known uncle tom and a known house nigger.

He can't very well say anything else.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1441
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Pulikeshi » 30 Jun 2018 14:15

Austin wrote:India’s foreign relations are in tatters and the Modi government has only itself to blame

Modi’s diplomatic ‘conquests’ are history and India’s foreign relations resemble a train-wreck. Here’s how government’s missteps have broken its own momentum.

India’s external and strategic environment is looking like a train-wreck and it isn’t just to do with the American humiliation of “postponing” the vaunted “two-plus-two” dialogue for the third time.


Indian Foriegn policy success is determined by US postponing 2+2 :roll:
There is much to be critical of on what this govt has missed on, but this article from Duppata takes the cake!

Much of this has unravelled over the past six months. India’s decline from global consciousness has been as rude as its rise was steady and smooth.


Mr. Duppata - India, sad to say, has never been in any global consciousness - none such exists.
Such delusions exists in the mindless minds of leftist. What we really have is a world power structure in transitions, it is the dawn of a new equilibrium...

Two external negatives were not the Modi government’s fault: The rise of Trump and a new Chinese assertion. Trump’s actions, particularly the change in Iran policy directly led to rising oil prices, destabilising India’s domestic economy and politics. The Chinese push for CPEC, unmindful of Indian concerns, and its moves in Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives and Bangladesh showed that China is no longer willing to leave the subcontinent as a zone of India’s pre-eminence. The days when a George W. Bush could speak to Hu Jintao on the phone to get India an NSG waiver are over. Xi won’t listen, but more importantly, Trump won’t do it. Because, if Modi is transactional, Trump is more so.


Two negatives?
Trump and XI? You forget all the real macro-economic, new institutions being created that are threats to India and you pick these two!!!
Something is not Modi’s fault - come on - he is responsible for Trump and CPEC - his failures can never come to a transactional end.
</sarc always ON>

The Modi government’s greatest blunder is to exploit sensitive external relations in its domestic politics. The first essential attribute of successful leaders in history is strategic patience. They move firmly, but never get so committed publicly as to deny themselves room for manoeuvre, front, back, sideways. In building strategic relations, the best leaders bat like Sunil Gavaskar, not Virender Sehwag. Modi has left himself no such room.


You lost me at Sunil Gavaskar! :twisted:

It is risky to keep punching above your weight, as India has been lately. You have to be cautious, not reckless, egged on by a Boswellian media, commentariat and unquestioning think tanks. Self-congratulation is a most tempting trap you set for yourself. For four years India has been celebrating becoming a “natural strategic ally” of the US, but has let its military decline. You can’t plan high strategy while your military remains tactical, border defence oriented.


Mr. Modi you are a miserable failure, as is your government, but you should not keep punching above your weight because...
wait, you may fail more?! :rotfl:

Four years have effectively seen four defence ministers, the current one being an ineffectual photo-op caricature.


He should apologize for this one! Or present a criteria by which he is making this claim.
Cheap pot shot just shows - he is the Gali ka kutta barking as elephants march!

You can throw stuff at me for saying this, but the world knows it. It won’t stop laughing.


Why would anyone waste stuff by throwing it at you? :P The world can laugh all it wants, it has laughed at ISRO, it has laughed at India’s inability to feed itself, it has laughed at Indian industry, it has laughed at Yoga, it has laughed at pretty much everything Indian... SO WTF?

Why then is our relationship with our “best, all-weather friend” America on decline, all neighbours in the Chinese embrace, and, barring Bangladesh, hostile and suspicious? How can Trump dare to be boorish with the prime minister of this Vishwaguru? How can Nikki Haley, who’s really not such a somebody in the Trump administration, come to India and order it to change its Iran policy? And check how Modi’s body language has changed in his engagement with Xi. How long has it been since Indian leaders stopped protesting that CPEC is passing through Indian territory in PoK?


Utter failure I tell you. The Americans or Chinese never dared before, especially when Modi was not in power! Now it is hatoasmi!

It’s time to stop breathless celebration. It will be wiser to take a deep breath, make a reality check, and introspect.


And then what? Punch below your weight? Be afraid of failure? Not be transactional? Shiver in your Duppata?
Ack-Thoo!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TKiran and 35 guests