I see no contradiction in anything I've post. What I've said all along, is separate the diplo affair from the larger trade and strategic issues.
That is a interpretation, how each person interpret. unfortunately, these can't be isolated as at the end we all are human. If diplomats don't feel comfortable or have low trust during interaction with each other how they can discuss strategic issues?
1. When one talks of "US will lose one of the biggest consumer market in the world." It implies some sort of sanction against imports from the US. If this happens, India will lose the biggest consumer market. We exported ~$5bn in textiles to the US in the last year. China, Vietnam, Cambodia and many others will happily fill the void. The people in India most hurt would be lower income, women etc. On top of that we run a $7bn annual surplus with the US http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... ed-picture
Not only will we get rapped by the WTO, confront penalties but also shoot our poorest workers in the process.
What WTO did, when US put us on the sanctions? Why WTO did not intervene when US hard press India regarding oil imports. WTO, UN, NATO, NSG all these groups are created and controlled by so called civilised first world countries. It is well known that at UN, USA bugs the diplomats room before important votes. What UN did, nothing because it Khan. US can make or break rules as per their wish. It is a way of corrupting the mind, let others feel culprit of breaking the rule. You have to create a counter rule to their and show it is the book. Like US is saying, our agencies worked as the law of book
2. When one says " Few billions of earning + they can dictate their terms by not supplying spare parts when they want. Nothing short of blackmailing". To me, it seems like what the Russians have perfected as an art form.
I am also not a fan of Russia, but at least they don't interfere in our national issues and respect our diplomats. Lately they are learning few tips from Khan. But at the end of the day, we are our own. This time around, Russia will not put their weight behind us.
3. When one says "We are already commited to Sudan and may be other parts. They are pushing us hard, put our boots in other places also. I know it is not for US but still it is resources committed to UN (Which is still in hands of western countries).
I think you'll find that the constituency for this is within India, as a way to improve chances for a UNSC seat (which it won't) and at the Jawan-level because they can get generous allowances for UN work. FWIW, I think it's stupid for us to be in DRC, Sudan and other places. Let the Chinese deal with it.
Once we get UNSC seat, we don't have to put our boots. And we don't to accept every instruction. Completely agree let the Chinese deal with it.
4. When one says: Don't people get this simple fact no one is going to help us. We are our own!!" we all get it. The point is do we also want to make more enemies while we are at it?
This beat me completely, how come we are responsible for all this mess? Who was doing snooping on India? NSA or it was some Indian agency. Who is making enemies, is it US or India? Have we done something wrong at the first place? It is US, who should have thought of outcome of their actions.
5. "India and the US need each other" . The US needs India to help prevent PRC from acting in an unrestrained manner and picking off rivals one by one. India needs the US not only to prevent the PRC from upping the ante with us but also to help when we do get attacked. And, we are more likely to get attacked by the PRC than the US is—IOW, we need the US more than they need us. We are talking degrees of need so there is no contradiction.
In point 4, "we all get it that we are our own"
and then again in point 5"India needs the US not only to prevent the PRC from upping the ante with us but also to help when we do get attacked."
. I give up to your logic or thinking.
6. When one says " I NEVER SAID, take the relations to breaking point but slow down the pace." True in a literal sense. But, if the point about losing one of the biggest consumer markets still holds, it will take relations to the breaking point. Also, slowing the pace down to what? The IA has not bought a new gun since the Bofors (~28 years?).
How come US is the biggest consumer market? I already mentioned what is slow down from my point of view. I am not going to repeat same sentence for nth time.
7." Buy what is absolutely necessary and skip what we can develop our self in next decade + we can live without it. e.g. Chinook, we need those so lets go ahead and buy those. Lets go ahead with follow on orders of transport and navy planes. But kill all other deals." No one can argue with the first part. The second part beginning with Chinook, shows how divided we are: Singha in his post above says "
the chinook and apache are another two iffy purchases that fulfill no particularly urgent". Others want to kill C17s, C-130s. The only people who can make this call are the IA/IAF.
We also have different PoV. I have my own and Singha can have his own. I already mentioned why I want Chinook, C17, C-130. But all other military deals should be delayed for infinite time
o repeat, I don't have any problem with respective MEA/DoS babus fighting each other over privileges or lack thereof. Nor do I have any problem with strictly enforced reciprocity for diplos. This is the one area where we can inflict maximum pain without hurting ourselves and it can be perfectly calibrated.
Silo the DK incident and fracas from the strategic relationship.
We can all blame Babus/MoD for deal delays, that is not part of this discussion. But I want to see GoI fight with tooth and nail until the end.