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: 14703
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 15 Dec 2019 12:44

Tuan wrote:
NRao wrote:
Can you kindly point me to where the FM has made these statements (underlined above)?

Thanks.


FM Jaishankar used this policy rhetoric in many of his interviews. For instance:

DER SPIEGEL: You haven't mentioned Beijing. Chinese companies are planning large infrastructure projects in Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. What is India doing to counter China's influence in the region?

Jaishankar: Whatever we do, we're not doing to counter China's influence. Take China away for a moment: We would be still be investing in Nepal, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka the way we do today.. [...] The more connected South Asia is, the better it is for us too.
On Jaishankar's comments ..
1. "Whatever we do, we're not doing to counter China's influence" Meaning we (India) can't compete with China given the resource gap and internal needs.
2. "The more connected South Asia is, the better it is for us too." Very generic statement that is just common sense i.e. connectivity is good for everyone. That is not an endorsement of BRI.

The above "neutral" stance, taken with India's past unequivocal statements on BRI means that India remains opposed to it "in its current form". India could always revise its position in future IF facts on the ground wrt BRI change. Nothing is set in stone.

India works with China on global & local issues where there is convergence. In fact, it does that with Bakistan too and that should come as no surprise especially if our foreign policy is based on realism rather than idealism.

However, India and China remain local and global competitors for power and influence heading into the Asian century. Therefore, India and China cannot have a "strategic partnership" in any form in near future. They will continue to co-operate on issues of common interest and BRI is obviously not one of them.

Btw, this competition was setup by China and not India, therefore the onus of proving it is not so rest entirely on China.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 15 Dec 2019 22:42

Tuan wrote:
NRao wrote:
Can you kindly point me to where the FM has made these statements (underlined above)?

Thanks.


FM Jaishankar used this policy rhetoric in many of his interviews. For instance:

DER SPIEGEL: You haven't mentioned Beijing. Chinese companies are planning large infrastructure projects in Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. What is India doing to counter China's influence in the region?

Jaishankar: Whatever we do, we're not doing to counter China's influence. Take China away for a moment: We would be still be investing in Nepal, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka the way we do today.. [...] The more connected South Asia is, the better it is for us too.


You are misreading his statement. His "The more connected South Asia is, the better it is for us too" is IMHO related to "Take China away for a moment". India does have a counter to OBOR, a trilateral effort with Mynamar and Thailand and another with BD.

Here is an update for you:

Mar 20, 2019 :: India signals to boycott China's Belt and Road Forum for second time

And, there are plenty more to support the argument that India is not going to engage in OBOR and that is a good thing.

Boy, you had me worried for a moment.

Finally, why would/should India support a pet project of a leader that may not be there tomorrow? OBOR is NOT and "Chinese" game plan.

And, much to the dislike of the Chinese, it is not even a win-win game plan.

On North vs. South issues, that topic should be for a diff thread, but, it has been discussed for eons. However, OBOR cannot solve that problem. China will invest but will expect a huge RoI. That RoI is the catch. In fact, fully expect North-South economic issues to get worse.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 16 Dec 2019 04:01


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 16 Dec 2019 11:31

India expands Indo-Pacific policy

It seems to be a major shift in FP. A new sheriff in town.

Dec 15, 2019)
NEW DELHI: India is increasing the area covered by its Indo-Pacific policy to include the western Indian ocean and Arabian Sea. This means that Asean is not only the heart of the Indo-Pacific, but includes the Gulf states and Africa. {Interesting. This means, from an Indian PoV, it is PACOM + the core of CENTCOM. Recall the US wanted India to provide a liaison at PACOM, but Indian insisted and got a post at CENTCOM}

The Indo-Pacific concept is also moving beyond economic, cultural and historical linkages to include an overarching strategic imperative, which shows India gradually evolving this new foreign policy concept into a hard power attribute, “one which drives existing mechanisms with a new sense of purpose”.

“The path toward a mutually beneficial, free, open, inclusive, and cooperative Indo-Pacific can begin from identifying specific actions to enhance cooperation on issues of broad interest” said foreign minister S Jaishankar on Saturday, asserting there is an “incontrovertible geographic logic to the Indo-Pacific.”

In a valedictory address at the end of the joint Indian Ocean Dialogue and Delhi Dialogue, which converged two key foreign policy imperatives of India – Act East and Indo-Pacific – Jaishankar suggested that since there is a multiplicity of views on the Indo-Pacific, there was merit in taking the idea outward with all the stakeholders of the larger region. “India’s approach to this concept led us to recognise that both geographical extremities of the Indo-Pacific and everything in between should ideally have their own indigenously evolved approach to the Indo-Pacific.

Stretching the geographical and therefore strategic area of the Indo-Pacific to encompass not merely a region stretching eastwards from India, which would have the Asean as the central focus, India is now incorporating the western Indian Ocean and Africa. “While the nations of the eastern Indian Ocean and States on the connecting seas leading to the Pacific are defining their vision of the Indo-Pacific, there is room for a western Indian Ocean version of this concept too.In line with our own view that the Indo-Pacific naturally includes our western ocean neighbours in the Gulf, the island nations of the Arabian Sea, and our partners in Africa.”

Giving a broad direction to how the Indo-Pacific would progress, Jaishankar said, “The more important task at hand is to invest time and effort to use the Indo-Pacific as an open, free and inclusive platform to deliver tangible and meaningful cooperative initiatives.” This, he said, would include initiatives spanning maritime security to human security.


All that remains is a substantial, "tangible", increase in naval funding to back this shift in FP.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 16 Dec 2019 11:42

Alignment of strategic interest with India, says US Defense Secretary

WASHINGTON: There is an alignment of America's strategic interest with India, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said on Friday as he identified China, followed by Russia, as Pentagon's top two challenges in the coming years.

"Next week in Washington DC, the United States will host the second ever India two-plus-two ministerial, where we will continue to advance our growing partnership as our strategic interests align," Esper said during his appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think-tank.

On December 18, Esper will host his Indian counterpart, Rajnath Singh, at the Pentagon for a bilateral meeting. Following this, he and Singh will drive down to the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department to join External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for the second India US 2+2 ministerial.

"As you could see, our resolve to uphold a free and open Indo-Pacific is deep-rooted and is only growing stronger in the face of efforts to undermine it," Esper said.

The defense secretary said the international rules-based order that America and its allies had worked hard to establish was being tested in new and precarious ways.

"We have entered a new era of great power competition," he said in reference to China.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 16 Dec 2019 13:47

Indian foreign policy especially over the so-called Indo- Pacific theatre, but at the core its IOR policy, should be Indo-centric.India has the strongest ties with IOR nations,including the Gulf and ASEAN. The littoral nations of Africa were at one time solidly behind us during the heyday of NAM and our unswerving policy on S.Africa and apartheid.Why have we lost out to China in Africa? Did we not have ample warning and enough time to revitalise our old relationships?

Under no circumstances should we be drawn into a US crafted security architecture which is meant solely for us to be cannon fodder for the US in any future spat with China, and to buy massive quantities of expensive second-rate US defence eqpt.
like ancien F-16/F-18s, all being pensioned off by the US and its allies.We are not the equivalent of honorary "second class NATO" allies!

Our core and fundamental task is to secure the neighbouring states from Chinese influence.Here oue MEA has miserably failed.Nepal once a Hindu monarchy (the only Hindu state in the world!), was allowed to fall to the communists and is now firmly embracing the Chins with a rail link to shortly reach it.I suggested a few years ago that we give Nepal a port facility in W.Bengal to provide a trade corridor for it, but while we slept over Nepal BDesh has stepped in.

Relations with Burma are 50-50, the gift of a Kilo sub a great idea, but one which has angered Thailand who are getting 2 old Chin subs like BDesh.Burma still has allowed the Chins to build an oil and gas pipeline to one of its ports which will allow it to by-pass the "Malacca dilemma", the chokepoint gor its energy supplies.This us why our two southern neighbours are so important.

While the Maldives thanks to democracy has returned to an " India first" policy and is re-negotiating with China to get out of yhe "debtvtrap",, Sri Lanka , perhaps the most important neighbour because of its geo-strategic location is an unmitigated foreign policy disaster.
We had 25 years of warning of Chin intentions in the island but failed miserably. It now has a return of the most pro- Chinese Lankan govt. ever who also despise India to the core, a president who presided over thf ruthless, cold-blooded massacre of tensbof yhousands of Tamil civilians caught up in the Eelam War with the LTTE. The new regime lies with its teeth every time they interact with us. The MEA now ambitiously wanting to play a (junior ) role to the US in the Indo- Pacific is a joke when we've done bugger all to prevent the Chins squatting on our doorstep just 20 + miles away in the island .
Similarly, we've antagonised Shiite Iran who were cooperating with us to outflank Sunni Pak, shamelessly capitulating to the US diktat
on oil purchases from Teheran.

Afghanistan.Despite so much of aid, we're letting Kabul down by not forcibly protesting about the US plan to nfgotiate with Pak and the Taliban.A US politico said that the Afghan War would bemover in a week if Pak acted ahainst the Taliban.Meanwhile we've pissed off Iran and thf future of the Chahbahar port,our route into Central Asia and logistic route into Afghanistan is in grave doubt.Fabulous own goal our MEA has scored!

The only show of spine, that too the bare minimum ,has been over
the S-400 purchase from Russia.Russia is far too important to the Indian military in too many military programmes why the MEA cannot overrule the armed forces and their core interests. But the Indian military will if we continue on the same path,eventually end up like those of Oz, playing second fiddle, ready and willing lackeys to save the bacon of precious US backsides.India did enough of saving the white man's bacon both in WW1 and WW2.

Thankfully we never got embroiled in the Korean War thanks to our independent FP post- Independence. Our finest hour was when Indira G split Pak into 2, created BDesh and took made us a fledging nuclear weapons power.
Atalji took this further with P-2 resisting US sanctions.
We need the same sort of spine today in the MEA that was displayed by Indira and Atalji. It will be an unmitigated disaster if we become a post-colonial lackey to another white power!

Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Nikhil T » 17 Dec 2019 11:22

India’s diplomatic heft on the wane in the US

As young officers, they put everything else aside in Washington, lived shadow lives as Congressional aides, in a manner of speaking, and transformed a hostile House of Representatives into the friendliest place for India since Independence. It took more time, but the Senate followed suit.

From that pinnacle of popularity, where the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans became the biggest caucus on Capitol Hill — bigger than the Israeli caucus — how did India get to a point where an Indian American Congresswoman is now tabling a bipartisan resolution against India?

This outcome is the sad story of a complete and irresponsible neglect of the Indian Embassy in Washington by the MEA in the last two years. Since Harsh Vardhan Shringla arrived on January 9 this year to take charge as Ambassador, he has had to work with a miserably weak team of supporting diplomats. No Ambassador to the US since Independence has had to put up with such a self-defeating situation in Washington.

In part, this is the result of a silent rebellion among the wives of Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers against going to Washington — indeed anywhere in the US except as the wife of a Consul General. IFS officers do not want wives to be unhappy in the US and they certainly want peace at home. So, when posts in America are circulated prior to meetings of the Foreign Service Board — which decides all IFS postings below Ambassadors — few bright or promising diplomats apply for slots in the US.

This predicament is the result of the notorious Devyani Khobragade incident in 2013, when the then Deputy Consul General in New York was arrested, humiliated and her diplomatic immunity violated on charges of visa fraud involving her maid and other alleged offences. Since then, it is impossible for IFS officers — except the Head of Mission and Head of Posts — to take housemaids with them to America.

Wives of several bright diplomats told this writer privately that they did not marry into the IFS to wash dishes for the Government of India or to wait on ministers or Members of Parliament who want Indian food to be served in diplomatic residences while travelling abroad. With young officers who would once have readily volunteered for a stateside posting now turning their backs on America, nurturing the Congress has grievously suffered.

Congressional aides will not hobnob with an Ambassador who is usually double their age and the informality they share with junior diplomats will be absent in dealings with a Head of Mission. The domestic revolt in the IFS is only one reason for India to go back 20 years and recreate a hostile US Congress, but other reasons require another column.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10092
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby sum » 17 Dec 2019 12:17

Wow...no takers for American postings?
How times change.....

Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1261
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Nihat » 17 Dec 2019 12:25

Is there any reason why India is not making any noise with respect to the plight of Muslims in China.

China as a nation only respects power and pushback and are consistently needling us on Kashmir. At the very least we should make a passing mention on the duo called vocational training camps for Muslims in China.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vishvak » 17 Dec 2019 12:35

sum wrote:Wow...no takers for American postings?
How times change.....

Maybe it's time to install non-intrusive devices (washing machines, dishwashers) and outsource cleaning jobs to non-strange personnel doing things on call. But jokes apart, the postings are important aren't they in larger scheme of things. Those who planned search of Indian official (Mrs. Devayani K.) seem to have succeeded beyond imagination.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2990
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 18 Dec 2019 00:15

China drops plea for discussion on Kashmir at UN.

France and other permanent members (which other members ?) of the UN Security Council on Tuesday thwarted an effort by China, acting on behalf of Pakistan, to discuss the situation in Kashmir, people familiar with the matter said on condition of anonymity.

China pushed for a meeting of the UN Security Council behind closed doors — the second such effort since an earlier meet on the Kashmir issue on August 16. At that time, China’s attempt to have an open and formal meeting of the Security Council was rebuffed by members of the body, which agreed to hold only “closed consultations”.

The people cited above said France and other permanent members of the Security Council conveyed to China the body was the not the best forum to discuss the Kashmir issue, which ought to be handled bilaterally by India and Pakistan. Non-permanent members of the council, such as Germany and Poland, too, showed no inclination for a discussion on Kashmir, they said.

The Chinese side subsequently withdrew its note seeking the meeting on Kashmir, the people added.

“Kashmir will not be discussed in the Security Council today (Tuesday),” said one of them, a French official.

“Our (France’s) position has been very clear — the Kashmir issue has to be treated bilaterally. We have highlighted this several times recently, including in New York,” this person added (Unequivocal and clear support of/to India from France). The closed consultations on August 16 marked the first time the Security Council took up the “India-Pakistan Question” — the UN’s term for the Kashmir issue — since 1971. Pakistan has been lobbying with China to take up the Kashmir issue in the Security Council since India revoked the special status of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir on August 5 and decided to split it into two Union territories.

In a letter sent to the Security Council on December 12, Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi expressed concern about a possible escalation of tensions in Kashmir. According to Reuters, China’s UN mission had written in its note to members of the Security Council: “In view of the seriousness of the situation and the risk of further escalation, China would like to echo the request of Pakistan, and request a briefing of the Council... on the situation of Jammu & Kashmir.” The discussion would not have involved a vote.

Beijing’s move created a flutter in New Delhi as it came days ahead of an expected meeting of the Special Representatives on the boundary issue — national security adviser Ajit Doval and foreign minister Wang Yi. The two leaders are set to meet in the Indian capital on December 21 after an earlier meeting scheduled for September was put off due to differences between the two sides. People familiar with developments said China appeared to be testing the waters in the Security Council for support for a move on the Kashmir issue following criticism by Western and Europe countries of the security lockdown and communications blackout in the region.

China, which claims the Ladakh region, has opposed the reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir. India has responded by saying the changes are an internal matter that don’t affect external boundaries.

We need to out what stand did Russia and UK take in the closed door meeting. A hard lesson for China to know it has limited limited leverage in trying to drive its agenda on the world stage. Each time India gets support, it fails in its status as a world power.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4271
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby KLNMurthy » 18 Dec 2019 00:28

vishvak wrote:
sum wrote:Wow...no takers for American postings?
How times change.....

Maybe it's time to install non-intrusive devices (washing machines, dishwashers) and outsource cleaning jobs to non-strange personnel doing things on call. But jokes apart, the postings are important aren't they in larger scheme of things. Those who planned search of Indian official (Mrs. Devayani K.) seem to have succeeded beyond imagination.


There are other options besides passively waiting for the next Preet Bharara to trap the next Devyani Khobragade and then complaining bitterly about it in social media.

GoI can provide adequate allowance to the IFSers to let them hire local help at prevailing wages, with the whole process being transparent. They should provide paid professional support in the consulate to make sure that they remain on the right side of all all the local laws & regulations at all times. No more "cheaping out" and "saving pennies."

IFS juniors and spouses should make it their business to aggressively cultivate & subvert local law enforcement & policy circles at all levels. Future Preet Bharara-types should be "turned" and made to work for India by hook or crook, not be left alone to pounce on Indian diplo staff for their political careers. What are diplomats for, otherwise?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 21 Dec 2019 23:48

The latest criticism from the geriatric Malaysian PM, Mahathir, should serve as a warning to our establishment in general.
Firstly, any firang leader criticising India will get the inevitable reply in " befitting manner" ( MEA's tailoring dept. what?) :rotfl:
Whatever the issue , interferencen in our affairs is not on and must be swiftly and publicly countered.

Nevertheless, while resorting to pompous indignation at times, we must realise that such criticism is because "our house is not in order". The controversial citizenship bill has been press-ganged upon the nation, however meritorious it may be without adequate explanation and taking the oppoisition into confidence for a consensus to allay fears, and the repercussions have attracted international criticism from several quarters, especialy Muslim, including the UN.
Therefore, we must be careful in our affairs that have an international dimension, not to give a convenient handle to vested anti- Indian interests.

Now back to the US and Mahathir's interference. The interfering US nitwit was given the " bum's rush" by our indignant FM.Kudos to him on this account.May we see more of it.The new grouping of Turkey, Malaysia, Iran and Qatar is very interesting as an alternative to the OIC and despotis Saudi leadership of the group
mainly bfcause of the ownership of the teo holiest Muslim citiesbin the world, Mecca and Medinah. This group is bound to attract Muslim nations pissed off with the OIC and the Saudi despot MSB. India shouldnot trwat thd group as a whole in any criyicism, unless there is a combined criticism by thf otganisation, but deal individually with our critics.

With Mahathir's critical remarks, and not for the first time, we must act rather than speak.A ciut- off of Malaysian palm oil imports to India is ling overdue. Let him wash his backside with his oil! Both Qatar and Iran are very valuable friends of India providing us with both gas and oil.With Iran and the Chahbahar port JV, critical to our Afghan and Central Asian relations, a pro- active explanation of the bill is requiired.In fact such is required for ALL our dpl missions overseas and for foreign missions in India.Heaps of hard work reqd. here.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby UlanBatori » 22 Dec 2019 00:38

Nevertheless, while resorting to pompous indignation at times, we must realise that such criticism is because "our house is not in order". The controversial citizenship bill has been press-ganged upon the nation, however meritorious it may be without adequate explanation and taking the oppoisition into confidence for a consensus to allay fears, and the repercussions have attracted international criticism from several quarters, especialy Muslim, including the UN.
Therefore, we must be careful in our affairs that have an international dimension, not to give a convenient handle to vested anti- Indian interests.

Philip: So far I have not figured out exactly what the CAA says, that infringes on the right of any Indian citizen. I think anyone opposing the law, which was passed with comfortable majorities in BOTH the Houses of the Indian Parliament, should be expected to at least tell us WHAT about the law they are opposing, and how they would act to solve the problems that triggered it.

Answer appears to be that it does not. Harm Indian citizens of any religion or color, I mean.

It is not India's fault that neighbors Pakistan and BD claim to be Islamic Nations, set up by, for and of Islamic ppl. So any clear policy on refugees fleeing religious persecution must lay out the parameters. Mentioning the name of one religion had to be done because that is what defines these two neighboring nations.
If people burn buses opposing that, they should be killed or encouraged to move to these neighboring nations.

The US recently banned travelers - not just refugees - from several Islamic-majority nations, but has made special provisions for religious refugees (Xtians mostly) from these nations. That was upheld by the US Supreme Court. So much for "constipationality". Mohterma Jaypal may not have approved, but her own Supreme Court did.

India's laws have always had special provisions re: Pakistanis (and since 1971, East Pakistan was replaced by BD). For instance, the OCI does not accept origins/parentage in Pak/BD. The present CAA is AFAIK a relaxation of that, to allow genuine refugees to become Indian citjens, while encouraging the others to return to their religious Houristan.

OTOH, I don't see the fun in harming traders who are the only ones who will be hurt by Palm Oil Ban etc. The US has now taken to targeting personal assets of netas in the offending nations, but that may become a dangerous bissing contest. Trouble is that more Indians need Malasysia, than Malaysia needs India, so Mahathir may be safely throwing stones. Better not to react at all, since his views don't matter diddly-squat.

saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3847
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby saip » 22 Dec 2019 00:59

The law is against ILLEGAL MUSLIM immigrants from three Islamic countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh and the Pakiland). According to their own statements they DO NOT persecute minorities in their countries, leave alone the Majority muslims who enjoy the best of everything that a pious (and sometimes even the non pious as long as he is a Muslim) can hope for and they have rivers of milk and honey for them now and 72 houris later. So by implication there are NO illegal Muslims from these three countries (except those brain dead people like Adnan Sami -- who else would go to Hindutwa ridden fascist India unless brain dead?). So what are these P & B protesting about (the A I did not hear anything from)? Beats me.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 22 Dec 2019 06:53

There is much confusion around.To give you an example.In yesterday's newspapers, one quotes the govt. saying current citizens are not at all affected and your usual documents suffice when the NRC is taken.Another report quoting another official says that the Aadhar card, passport,etc. are NOT enough,a passport is only a travel document! It is the NRC that is worrying many, not granting citizenship to those refugees as stated,except for the Assamese who feel that they will get swamped by refugees/ illegals and demographically lose electoral power of their state. Tamilnadu asks why Lankan refugees who let's face it have endured hellish times both from the GOSL and the LTTE, have been left out. The new pres. has just begun going after his political opponents arresting them.The Tamils in SL will face huge problems again in the future.

Right now in a " no-man's land,", 60,000 SL Tamil refugees are in camps ,another 30,000 outside,with heavy restrictions, at the mercy of corrupt officials, to get basic cards,etc. They can leave camp only between 8am to 6pm, can't open bank accts. etc. The vast majority are Hindus,being persecuted by a regime that places Buddhism as the state religion,even though in SL all govt. forms and circulars are in 3 languages, sinhala,tamil and english,something that our central and state govts. could adopt in the interests of the varied cultures,languages,etc.of the dozens of states and languages that make up the country.The funny thing is that our govt. treats events in the island as only an " ethic crisis", turning a blind eye to the religious angle. To my knowledge,this is partly being redressed by the RSS assisting our Tamil brethren in the island, doing what the MEA should do!

Anyway, this is the FP td. The sole point I was making was we need to be very careful not internationalising domestic matters.If Imran imagines that millions of Muslims will flee India for Pak, why he, Mahathir and co. criticise us, exactly the opposite is happening with our Muslim citizens worried about losing their Indian citizenship! The amendments to the act must be simply and clearly defined for our missions abroad and foreign missions in India, explained to them by our diplomats immediately to reassure them that India is not about to disenfranchise millions of minorities.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2990
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 23 Dec 2019 04:34

P4 foils China's attempt to discuss Kashmir at UNSC.

The US, France, UK and Russia, backed by Germany and Indonesia, nixed China’s proposal to discuss Kashmir at a closed-door UN Security Council (UNSC) meeting on Tuesday, ET has learnt. While the US, which holds the rotating chair for UNSC, took the lead in opposing the proposal, France argued that Kashmir is a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, the people aware of the matter told ET. A French diplomatic source said, “Our position has been very clear. Kashmir issue has to be treated bilaterally. We have highlighted this several times recently, including in New York.”

The development comes ahead of the proposed India-US two-plus two ministerial meet on Wednesday and Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi’s likely trip to India this month for special representative (SR) talks. The people cited earlier said that the UK emphatically backed India’s stand on Kashmir—the first time it has done so in the UNSC — while Russia, another permanent member of UNSC, did not favour discussing the issue at the forum and said other vital global issues should be on the agenda.

Some other members of the 15-member UNSC, including Indonesia, had reservations that discussion regarding troop build-up on the Indian side of Line of Control is essentially an internal matter for New Delhi, informed sources told ET. A source said that the Chinese proposal was possibly to bring pressure on the next edition of SR talks and the point was to call for a discussion in the aftermath of the release of a revised map of J&K by the Indian government after the state’s bifurcation.

“A closed-door session in UNSC towards the closing of the Security Council for the holidays and one day before 2+2 talks and three days before Wang Yi’s visit to India on 21 Dec for the SR talks on the border does not make sense if Beijing did not want to pressurise India on the boundary issue,” a person familiar with the developments said.

Another person said it was China’s attempt to rattle India by claiming that the Indo-Pakistan and India-China border issues are on the agenda in the Security Council. The December 21 SR-level talk is the first edition of the India-China dialogue since re-election of the Narendra Modi-led government. At the informal summit at Mamallapuram, India and China had decided to give impetus to SR-level talks to enable launch of clarification of Line of Actual Control, the de facto boundary between the neighbours. This is the second time China has sought to discuss Kashmir at the closed-door session of the UNSC.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 24 Dec 2019 10:03

China has to be paid back in the same coin.India to rake up the issue of human rights and concentration camps for Uighurs, Tibetans, and repression in Hong Kong. We need to more openly interact with Taiwan a genuine democracy and not allow the Chins to isolate it internationally. " My enemy's enemy is my friend", said the Great Helmsman. Time to teach the Chinks of Zhongnanhai
some lessons from Mao's little Red Book.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20968
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 24 Dec 2019 10:05

Good news about our new Foreign Sec. appointed,but why were so many of his equally competent seniors superseded? Not a good practice. Perhaps being the envoy in Washington saw the US lobby help him leapfrog his seniors.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 27 Dec 2019 08:30

After Pompeo-Jaishankar Meet, India Gets ‘Written’ Assurance From US To Facilitate Funding Of Iran’s Chabahar Port

Amazing!! Another feather in MEA's cap.

In a major boost for the Chabahar port project which is being developed by India in Iran's Sistan and Baluchiustan province, the United Status has given India a written assurance that will help in facilitate global banks to fund the purchase of equipment worth $85 million for the project without any sanctions, reports Hindu Businessline.

India had been unable to place orders for equipment for a long time, some as long as two years, given the US had imposed sanctions on Iran in November 2018. Owing to the sanctions, no bank was in a position of sanctioning a letter of credit for the purchase.

The latest assurance from US comes after Union External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's visit to the US for second 2+2 ministerial dialogue during which he engaged with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Prior to this meeting, the US had only offered verbal assurances.

The port is a 60:40 joint venture between India Ports Global and Aria banader Iranian Port and its revenues are to be shared between Iran and India as per an agreed formula. The Phase-I of the port will remain under Indian control under a ten year lease.

The port is of great strategic importance for India for the development of regional maritime transit traffic to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 27 Dec 2019 09:28

^ We will soon find out what the american's have extracted for this 'assurance'. Hopefully it will have safeguards to cover India when/if there is a change in the white house

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3526
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ArjunPandit » 27 Dec 2019 15:50

^^i think we are getting 200 F18s or some carrier tech..apart from that there is nothing that we can get from US on reasonable terms...engine tech is not coming at any cost...F35 is not up for discussion(at least for now), IAF will probably not take F16...carrier manufacturing tech/EMALS is something India can be taken through the garden path ...as we dont have khanesque experience of buidling, operating large carriers..

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Dec 2019 16:34

Manish_P wrote:^ We will soon find out what the american's have extracted for this 'assurance'. Hopefully it will have safeguards to cover India when/if there is a change in the white house


Realization MAY be setting in that Amir Khan needs an alternative to Terroristan for access to Afghanistan - and link to CAR. Spend some minutes on Google: there is a relatively direct road running north from Chabahar along the Afghan border. One can cut right towards Kandahar, and into Helmand, and probably places up north and beyond. Trouble is, if you look at drive times on Google, you get a shock: the average speed was like 3kmph, last time UBCN checked. I have no idea why: it looks like a wide road.

If Eyeran and India with maybe northern neighbors' help, were to improve and widen that road to 80kmph average it could be a MAJOR pipeline for goods and people. And totally bypass the Khyber-Bolan extortion schemes of the Pakis.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2990
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 27 Dec 2019 20:02

It would make sense for Uncle Sam to support Balochistan as a free and independent country. Uncle Sam can set up a major military base which will help it have access to Afghanistan/Central Asia. It would reduce the Paki strategic location importance to ZERO. Most importantly USA it will have a presence to check mate the Iranians and veto or control any chinese plans or access to the gulf/middle east through the pakistani land route.

An independent Balochistan/Kalat makes imminent Geopolitical sense.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 27 Dec 2019 20:51

UlanBatori wrote:
Realization MAY be setting in that Amir Khan needs an alternative to Terroristan for access to Afghanistan - and link to CAR. Spend some minutes on Google: there is a relatively direct road running north from Chabahar along the Afghan border. One can cut right towards Kandahar, and into Helmand, and probably places up north and beyond. Trouble is, if you look at drive times on Google, you get a shock: the average speed was like 3kmph, last time UBCN checked. I have no idea why: it looks like a wide road.

If Eyeran and India with maybe northern neighbors' help, were to improve and widen that road to 80kmph average it could be a MAJOR pipeline for goods and people. And totally bypass the Khyber-Bolan extortion schemes of the Pakis.


Maybe.. i have my doubts. Always easier (if costlier) to control one entity (Pak Mil) and make them do the heavy lifting suppressing than risk multiple headaches - Eyeran on one side, Pakis through Afghans on another, Chinese through Pakis on the third.

W.r.t the road along the north along the afghan border and thence more north, is there not the little matter of PoK which needs to be sorted out first - i mean we first need to be neighbours right?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 27 Dec 2019 21:00

Vips wrote:It would make sense for Uncle Sam to support Balochistan as a free and independent country. Uncle Sam can set up a major military base which will help it have access to Afghanistan/Central Asia. It would reduce the Paki strategic location importance to ZERO. Most importantly USA it will have a presence to check mate the Iranians and veto or control any chinese plans or access to the gulf/middle east through the pakistani land route.

An independent Balochistan/Kalat makes imminent Geopolitical sense.


Wonder how the Russians would react? They have been patiently biding their time for Amir Khan finally get fed up of bleeding in A-stan and quit and go home and then along comes the possibility of a 'free' (Saudi style?) Balochistan/Kalat with a permanent US base and all the luxuries of home for decades more..

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vishvak » 27 Dec 2019 21:03

An independent Balochistan/Kalat makes imminent Geopolitical sense

An independent country oblige d to China and us/eu or a UT of India.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 27 Dec 2019 21:21

I happen to think the Teens were a foregone conclusion - the pressure from the US was always there and India did not have a good push back plan.

Until: S-400 and now this "assurance" on the Iranian port.

IMHO, India traded (TDB granted, just my theory) the pressure for those two items. Although I fully expect new outlets to say India had to buy the teens because of ........ I think it is the other way around. I think it was the US that had to give in to Indian positions. ???????




However, all these things, IMHO, are a secondary topic. The primary topic - from an Indian PoV - is that India seems to be very confident that Afghanistan will be stable. An unstable A'stan means any Indian thought to connect the sea to Central Asia is dead on arrival. No two ways about that. So, investing in this Iranian port - to me - is a way for India to essentially guarantee A'stan's stability and perhaps her independence too. IF true, that is a tall order and much kudos to Modi's admin (actually, Ajit Doval and by extension IFV).

Also, the road from the Iranian port into A'stan is not the major mode of transport. It is a rail link that will form the backbone - and, rightly so. There has been a good deal of chatter on this matter in the past few days.

I also happen to think there is a game plan for PoK. ....................

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Dec 2019 23:32

Teens will go into MOD (I mean Ministry not PM) and Baboonistan and won't come out untl 2035. That's what the CNBC article was whining about. But a wonderful concept: American aircraft flying Indian colors off Russian decks carrying French missiles over the Pakistan Ocean, facing Chinese planes flying Chinese colors off Chinese decks carrying Chinese missiles. In becomes a Multinational Force!

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8731
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Mort Walker » 28 Dec 2019 00:27

Manish_P wrote:^ We will soon find out what the american's have extracted for this 'assurance'. Hopefully it will have safeguards to cover India when/if there is a change in the white house


Continued arms purchases of a billion/year and what’s most worrying is the Amir Khan May get the entire Aadhar and NRC biometric data base of 130 crore Indians.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2990
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 28 Dec 2019 02:45

vishvak wrote:
An independent Balochistan/Kalat makes imminent Geopolitical sense

An independent country oblige d to China and us/eu or a UT of India.


Lets be practical. For Balochistan to be a UT of India needs Vision, Balls and Commitment which Dharmic forces have never really exhibited since 800 AD.

Independent Balochistan obliged to either EU or US or Russia does not matter so long as it is not in control/influence of Porkis and Cheenis.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16817
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 28 Dec 2019 08:41

Mort Walker wrote:
Manish_P wrote:^ We will soon find out what the american's have extracted for this 'assurance'. Hopefully it will have safeguards to cover India when/if there is a change in the white house


Continued arms purchases of a billion/year and what’s most worrying is the Amir Khan May get the entire Aadhar and NRC biometric data base of 130 crore Indians.


Really?

After complaining about the Brits stealing trillions, India is allowing trillions per year to leave the country?

I was opposed to MasterCard (whose CEO is an NRI, BTW) taking Indian data out of the country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any URLs would be appreciated. Thanks.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3906
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 28 Dec 2019 09:03

Vips wrote:It would make sense for Uncle Sam to support Balochistan as a free and independent country. Uncle Sam can set up a major military base which will help it have access to Afghanistan/Central Asia. It would reduce the Paki strategic location importance to ZERO. Most importantly USA it will have a presence to check mate the Iranians and veto or control any chinese plans or access to the gulf/middle east through the pakistani land route.

An independent Balochistan/Kalat makes imminent Geopolitical sense.

I am a bit surprised to see no one seems to be considering what OUR interests would be, but talking about unkil, Russia, etc. Does India want an external power to set foot into the sub-continent? We have been trying to keep them out of SL and BD, why would we be okay with such an arrangement in a free Balochistan?

If a free Balochistan ever happens, it should be firmly under Indian protection and guidance, and no one else should have a foothold in the form of a military facility. No ifs and buts. Sure, the amrikis can send their convoys through to Afghanistan, but us having a say on such transport will give us leverage over unkil. Why would we let go of such an opportunity, after (hypothetically) having gone through the trouble to free Balochistan?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 28 Dec 2019 11:16

vip wrote:For Balochistan to be a UT of India needs Vision, Balls and Commitment which Dharmic forces have never really exhibited since 800 AD.


arshyam wrote:...
If a free Balochistan ever happens, it should be firmly under Indian protection and guidance, and no one else should have a foothold in the form of a military facility. ...


Err do we even share a border with Balochistan?

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vishvak » 28 Dec 2019 11:32

Independent Balochistan obliged to either ..

Political correctness will change colours.. making local interest look like Chinese, same as how it is with Pakis.
Err do we even share a border with Balochistan?

Do Saudi paki bangla and malay share borders. Yet pakilands exists like a dagger in South Asia.

If balochis want to be part of India then how do we do it is the thing to consider.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3906
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 28 Dec 2019 11:38

Manish_P wrote:
vip wrote:For Balochistan to be a UT of India needs Vision, Balls and Commitment which Dharmic forces have never really exhibited since 800 AD.


arshyam wrote:...
If a free Balochistan ever happens, it should be firmly under Indian protection and guidance, and no one else should have a foothold in the form of a military facility. ...


Err do we even share a border with Balochistan?

Do the US, Russia or China?

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 28 Dec 2019 15:44

Have we forgotten what happened to the USSR, ignore what is happening to the US and dismiss what will likely happen to China in A-stan?
Do you think these players will not continue to play their games in B-stan (not to forget Eyeran)?

How do you propose we 'firmly protect and ensure no one else has a military foothold' there when we do not share a border and have no real expeditionary ambitions yet (nor are likely to build up the capability to take on the others soon)?

Note that i am in favor of break up of Pak into various parts. And even more in favor of taking steps to keep them fully occupied at each others throats.

vishwak wrote:If balochis want to be part of India then how do we do it is the thing to consider.


Have they expressed a desire to be such? I always thought that they wanted a 'free'/'Azaad' Balochistan

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3906
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 28 Dec 2019 18:19

Manish_P wrote:Have we forgotten what happened to the USSR, ignore what is happening to the US and dismiss what will likely happen to China in A-stan?
Do you think these players will not continue to play their games in B-stan (not to forget Eyeran)?

How do you propose we 'firmly protect and ensure no one else has a military foothold' there when we do not share a border and have no real expeditionary ambitions yet (nor are likely to build up the capability to take on the others soon)?

Note that i am in favor of break up of Pak into various parts. And even more in favor of taking steps to keep them fully occupied at each others throats.

Saar, the same problems are true for US/Russia/China, aren't they? They are also external powers that don't share any borders with Balochistan. Yes, we don't do expeditionary stuff, but we do act to protect our interests. We provide security to Bhutan and have stationed the IMTRAT there, have acted to protect Maldives, etc. in the recent past. We clearly do more than what we say in Afghanistan, despite it being very difficult to supply to (Balochistan with its long coastline is much easier). But we still persisted with Afghanistan, built their Delaram highway, tried to get the Chahbahar port operational, etc. Clearly, when the situation demands, we don't say "we don't have expeditionary ambitions" and not do anything.

Yes, there are challenges, but we should not rule ourselves out due to them. All I pointing out here is that we always think in terms of what US does, Russia wants to do, etc., but somehow ignore India's own interests. What are our interests? I think this is what it is in this context:

1. Break up of the western threat into a manageable problem without trigegring an exodus of refugees into India.
2. Keep a toehold in the region, preferably in the rear, to deny a strategic depth to this threat, a la Afghanistan.
3. Ensure this region develops enough to become stable. Since this is a tall order given the interference by neighbouring countries (your own point), we must have some level of presence to ensure at least #2.
4. Deny space to other extra-regional powers, and if we have to, control said space via all means available.
5. Coming to our northern threat, don't allow any southern sea access to their interior regions, or ensure such access is useless for them. This is another tall order, but does not mean should not try - CPEC seems to be dead as the dodo at this point..
6. Ensure our sea-borne trade interests are protected.

Now, I had said:
arshyam wrote:If a free Balochistan ever happens, it should be firmly under Indian protection and guidance, and no one else should have a foothold in the form of a military facility.

#1, #2, #4, #5 and to some extent, #6 are met by the above statement, and I did say "if" it happens. I agree it is a tall order, but we must have a say if it (and when) materializes.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vishvak » 28 Dec 2019 19:23

Have they expressed a desire to be such? I always thought that they wanted a 'free'/'Azaad' Balochistan

From earlier Baloch leader to approach India
By the way anyone notice how much of Chinese debt burdern is on baloch. 'international' or such don't seem to notice except China ('because') who loot everyone. We indians are good at shouting slogans without realising baloch under Chinese debt don't have much say.
3. Ensure this region develops enough to become stable.

A 25 year moratorium as Indian UT would be nice. We need to instill Indic values that doesn't harm others.
Last edited by vishvak on 28 Dec 2019 19:28, edited 1 time in total.

Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_P » 28 Dec 2019 19:26

arshyam wrote:Saar, the same problems are true for US/Russia/China, aren't they? They are also external powers that don't share any borders with Balochistan.


Yes. And the USSR quit Afghanistan, the Americans want to (but still run the show via proxy) and so do the chinese (who already have a proxy - the same one in fact :D)

arshyam wrote: Yes, we don't do expeditionary stuff, but we do act to protect our interests. We provide security to Bhutan and have stationed the IMTRAT there, have acted to protect Maldives, etc. in the recent past. We clearly do more than what we say in Afghanistan, despite it being very difficult to supply to (Balochistan with its long coastline is much easier). But we still persisted with Afghanistan, built their Delaram highway, tried to get the Chahbahar port operational, etc. Clearly, when the situation demands, we don't say "we don't have expeditionary ambitions" and not do anything.


Bhutan - with whom we share a border
Maldives - with whom no one shares a border and whom we are geographically closer to. And who does not interest Uncle Sam much, partly due to Diego G
Afghanistan - with whom we used to share a sliver of a border, which was in Pak proxy control despite our covert efforts to assist the northern alliance, and where we currently do a lot more but only under overwatch of Khan. If Khan quits and goes home tomorrow (he won't, but say he does) then just how much time do you give our folks there?

Yes Saar, we are do something but just not on the scale where we can not just assure but also ensure no one else getting a foothold in the form of a military facility.

arshyam wrote:Yes, there are challenges, but we should not rule ourselves out due to them. All I pointing out here is that we always think in terms of what US does, Russia wants to do, etc., but somehow ignore India's own interests. What are our interests? I think this is what it is in this context:


Nope. I was not ruling out our Interests at all. I was merely stating the geographical challenges. Balochistan is no Bangladesh. We helped form Bangladesh despite Khan and the dragon. We had a massive advantage of sharing the border there. The US fleet couldn't have done much except delay the inevitable (soviet naval support or not). IMVHO for 'helping' Balochistan significantly in material terms we must either share a border with it, or create a border with it or significantly control the countries which have a border with it.

arshyam wrote:Now, I had said:
arshyam wrote:If a free Balochistan ever happens, it should be firmly under Indian protection and guidance, and no one else should have a foothold in the form of a military facility.

#1, #2, #4, #5 and to some extent, #6 are met by the above statement, and I did say "if" it happens. I agree it is a tall order, but we must have a say if it (and when) materializes.


We already have a say in it, but our voice is merely a polite whisper now since we are not at the table, just near it.

W.r.t your points
1. I am not sure i understand. Are you saying that the breakup of Pak should be limited only to an independent B-stan?
2. This is exactly my concern - with present Geographical constraints, the most we have, or could hope realistically to have, is a toehold. With other players, with more weight to bear, in a position to slam the door.
3. I would agree. The interference part itself would make it more of a sinkhole.
4. :) refer to point 2
5. Which is a, if not 'the', very significant reason why the Han invested and remains invested in Pak. And which is also a good reason for Khan to keep courting Pak (the other being to keep us tied down as well).
6. I am not sure i understand exactly.

In any case, i think these posts are more suited to the Balochistan thread. Thanks.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chiru, Manny, pravula and 43 guests