Superpower rhetoric and reality

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. 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.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Bade » 02 Jan 2013 06:28

Domination of territories or its occupation cannot be seen as unnecessary or evil for any aspiring power. If that were the case, then the so called indic civilization should have been limited to a few tribes and not spread across the wide swath of current limits of India. The whole of the earth is the playground for any aspiring power or powers, and there is no escaping that. We have extended that to space in the last century itself. If we box ourselves in to artificial limits based on some esoteric philosophy then it is a sure fire way to not achieving any super-whatever-dom.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Bade » 02 Jan 2013 06:35

SwamyG, I do not see technology as a tool only. It becomes a tool. But you need technology first or rather creativity displayed in sciences first before thinking big. Lot of discoveries and inventions did not happen because there was a strategic thought in such an enterprise. But the simultaneous activities in science/technological innovations with economic and military expansion and desire helped the latter more.

If you look at economics alone, then Rome is supposed to have traded with India (if not the whole of India) more than 2000 yrs ago, but did not have the technological means to do what say later European powers did beginning in 1600 or so. Technology gave the colonial powers that edge. Of course in modern times all three (economy, military and tech+science) has become so interlinked that we tend to think of technology as a mere tool for the former two, IMO.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 02 Jan 2013 07:24

btw, bollywood culture will never catch up .. it is totally local perspective. dishum dishum belly belly pyar pyar sleep sleep.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 02 Jan 2013 07:27

Bade wrote:Domination of territories or its occupation cannot be seen as unnecessary or evil for any aspiring power.

There are certain absolutes - domination and occupation is evil. Period. It will be seen as such by all - those who are occupied as well as any third parties - except the occupying (is it == aspiring?) power. There are no more unexplored territories in the world today. Even if a new territory were to be found miraculously tomorrow, there would not be any justification to occupy the same and subjugate the natives (who are sure to be there).

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Bade » 02 Jan 2013 07:42

There is way out of this conundrum. The past occupiers did it at short timescales, just stretch it in time. Immigration is the backdoor occupying method for modern times just like it was before large scale migrations stopped across the globe. I think Avram has hinted at that. Occupation also means getting assimilated too, even if not entirely ie 100% culturally and with ties to the mother country. In that sense, America is currently occupied by Europeans culturally. Something along similar lines or even more loosely choosing to be part of a larger federation if benefits accrue to all parties. Nothing is fixed, even boundaries though we think so at present.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 02 Jan 2013 07:55

Fundamentally, the occupying culture is middle-east (shall we call it middle-west, from India-centric point of view) eye-rope and up to wild west. That was basically, imho, because of food scarcity 100s of years back. India was the center for being captured, raped and plundered just because of huge food resources and wealth, that was looted and gone.

For the future, we don't have to occupy any country other than the only super power for assimilation purposes.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 02 Jan 2013 10:16

Bade wrote:There is way out of this conundrum.
IOW, world without borders List of Without Borders organizations but not necessarily a "fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean".
<rhetoric>In such a world is there any need for "superpower"s?</rhetoric>

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10417
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Vayutuvan » 02 Jan 2013 10:21

SaiK wrote:Fundamentally, the occupying culture is middle-east (shall we call it middle-west, from India-centric point

SaiK ji, you are bringing it out of the realm of the meta-physics. Not bad by any means. But the survey itself is highly abstract (and pointless - I say this with a hat tip to hakim ji).

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Bade » 02 Jan 2013 10:54

matrimc wrote: IOW, world without borders List of Without Borders organizations but not necessarily a "fictional island society in the Atlantic Ocean".
<rhetoric>In such a world is there any need for "superpower"s?</rhetoric>

Ideally yes, no borders of 40,000 yrs ago is the best solution. But it will take a lot more to deconstruct the existing walls today. The "west" does control the world today. The only way is to hence construct your own federation to dilute the power of the west first, to get an equal footing in the open border less world the final entity, which is a very long way off anyways. :P

So superpower-dom is just a bargaining chip if you will. I am assuming all existing races and ethnic groups of today were from superpower tribes of 40,000 years ago. Others perished being no match with the latest technology of those times.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2013 13:55

Why do people call India as having "superpower aspirations"? Who has these aspirations? Who is bluffing whom? The description is usually used only as a stick to beat India with.

After all "aspiration" means "wannabe" and "not there yet"? In what way is India showing these "aspirations". Is mere growth of India at a Hindu rate or secular rate causing people to accuse India if having "superpower aspirations"? Can someone tell me wtf these "superpower aspirations" of India supposed to be?

If no one knows, why is the expression bandied about every now and again?

I don't think India has expressed or shown any "superpower aspirations"

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Sanku » 02 Jan 2013 14:43

shiv wrote:
Sanku wrote:1 sounds reasonable, apart from the "occupied territories" bit


Sanku. Think Hawaii, Diego Garcia, Falklands, Hong Kong (until recently), French Guyana, Canary Islands, Gibraltar, New Caledonia. Bases (colonies/protectorates)+Aircraft carriers = global force projection


Bade wrote:Domination of territories or its occupation cannot be seen as unnecessary or evil for any aspiring power. If that were the case, then the so called indic civilization should have been limited to a few tribes and not spread across the wide swath of current limits of India.


Shiv-ji/Bade-ji --> First of all I fully agree in pricinple to the above statements, that is a Super power (esp in practice) has often occupied territories.

However I still think that there is some debate about
1) What is occupation
2) Whether occupation is a necessary condition for being marked a superpower (i.e. if it does not have occupied areas it is not a superpower)

Point 1>> Where I differ is, I think Hawaii is not a example of occupation (any more than rest of US) where as US examples of occupation would be Vietnam in past, and others you mention here.

Similarly I do not think that when India was a global power (it was one till recently) -- it was a occupying force at all -- occupation refers to a particular meme, where a different political/cultural power takes over for resource/advantage extraction -- growing your empire/kingdom/xyz in a inclusive manner or to a extent the old force is fully pushed out, in my opinion will not be occupation, it will be territorial expansion.

So what we are saying is "Is a global superpower necessarily expansive?" that is actively seeks to also increase the political boundary?

IMVHO the answer is no. One can be a superpower without being expansionist in the political boundary sense, however that is probably only a new 21st century definition. In older era, political expansion would be necessary for a superpower (chakravartin) -- I think that is no longer necessary (possible ?) in the current scheme of things.

Point 2>> Today even occupation is not a necessary condition for a superpower being a superpower. In the sense that if a power can meet the other goals, such as a clear identity and manifest destiny, a global economic and military clout (not global interdependence, global clout, viz being able to influence events in your favor and not be dictated by others) a strong soft power projection etc, then we can say, EVEN if there there is no external occupation -- that the power is Super.

Viz, presence of a occupation is a commonly observed side effect of a super power, but not a essential condition to become one.

The essential conditions are the ones listed above.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Sanku » 02 Jan 2013 14:47

shiv wrote:I don't think India has expressed or shown any "superpower aspirations"


None what so ever.

marten wrote:But then again, I voted for option 4: Economic clout. Military clout follows this. Logic might be misplaced, but if we are a munna for the US/Oiros (as we seem to be in my eyes), who would dare attack their manufacturing/service workforce?


Marten-ji --> I disagree, global interdependence and global clout are two different things (something I wrote completely independently above too)

Sanku wrote:not global interdependence, global clout, viz being able to influence events in your favor and not be dictated by others


What we want is the economic interdependence leaves the levers in your hand, the net advantage is yours, and you are the top dog of this dog eat dog exercise. The chota dogs of the pack are not a super power even if the pack is super power. Only the leadel is.

prahaar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2797
Joined: 15 Oct 2005 04:14

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby prahaar » 02 Jan 2013 15:19

shiv wrote:
prahaar wrote:Shivji, did you purposely define Super Power in a sense US sees itself as one? There could be other forms of becoming a great nation that serves its people specifically and the world generally well, and provides possibility for a decent life.


No. Great Britain was exactly like that. The USSR was almost there. Portugal and France too had similar characteristics. But before the industrial revolution, global clout was either absent, or it remains unknown. Various entities including India, China. Assyria and later the Islamic Caliphate have had clout, but not of the type that came after the industrial revolution.

But these are my views? Do you have something else in mind? Pleas say what you think.


I feel that Superpower-ness is a claim, never a fact. Superpower may denote global influence to manage events (political, social, financial, military, etc). I feel the quest for Superpower-ness is a blackhole, which sucks any entity that aspires for it. US is only the latest power that claims to be one. As far back as Hiranyaksha/Hiranyakashyapu there have been entities that have aspired for this.

In my opinion, Republic of India has never expressed such desires. Our (I mean India) policy has been to achieve a better quality of life for our citizens (food, clean drinking water -please note water and food both are still treated as different needs, just suggests the distance we need to travel, health, education, individual freedom to progress, etc). Our government policy is currently geared to achieve (not necessarily achieving that) food, shelter, clothing, etc.

All this Superpower-giri is being imposed on an aspiring Macaulayized Youth, to bend them towards the desired (by powers inimical to India) policy decisions.

alexis
BRFite
Posts: 462
Joined: 13 Oct 2004 22:14
Contact:

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby alexis » 02 Jan 2013 15:38

shiv wrote:Why do people call India as having "superpower aspirations"? Who has these aspirations? Who is bluffing whom? The description is usually used only as a stick to beat India with.

After all "aspiration" means "wannabe" and "not there yet"? In what way is India showing these "aspirations". Is mere growth of India at a Hindu rate or secular rate causing people to accuse India if having "superpower aspirations"? Can someone tell me wtf these "superpower aspirations" of India supposed to be?

If no one knows, why is the expression bandied about every now and again?

I don't think India has expressed or shown any "superpower aspirations"


These "aspirations" are imaginations of some people (higher middle class) trying to ape the US! They see the McDs, KFCs and Pizza huts in India and think we are going to reach the level of the country these establishments originated. These aspirations are fanned by some apologists to further their interests in India - by preaching to us about values, human rights etc.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby symontk » 02 Jan 2013 15:41

The thread is a nonsense and an affront to South Asia

South Asia is already a super power having defeated other super powers like UK, USSR, USA, Afghanistan, PLO, Somalia, Ivory coast, TTP, Al Qaida etc

Sorry for jokes only

Jokes aside, India is the only country which has defeated an existing super power UK without firing a shot. But to become a super power itself, India is a long way to go. So aspring is not in bad sense. But using such a term where ever and when ever should be discouraged especially when the Indian governments dont have such policy of becoming a super power

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5241
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby ShauryaT » 02 Jan 2013 21:23

Shiv ji: If the word "super power" is to be used, based on the way the poll is defined, which is largely a western construct of the word based on their world view - then it does not apply to India.

The question then becomes, what does India aspire to? Either we have the same aspirations and limited by the same aspirations that western powers have or what we have is all nonsense to cover up our inability to project power. Another way to say it is, India does not have these aspirations as the political entity called India is itself a modern construct and we have not yet figured, what we want our aspirations to be.

All this soft power, technology power, etc is nonsense for the core of power projected as we understand them is based on hard power. All other powers are ancillary to it. Everything else comes later. The above is not equal to saying only hard power is important.

I think in the new republic a section of India aspires to be a "great" power - but not a super power. A great power is one that is able to defend its core interests as its polity sees them. This aspiration is a WIP.

manjgu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2238
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby manjgu » 02 Jan 2013 21:45

akbaruddin owasi mocks India , its civilization, culture, religion and the country twiddles its thumbs... superpower? emerging power? great power ? WIP !! WTF ! a true banana republic IMHO

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby shiv » 02 Jan 2013 22:29

manjgu wrote:akbaruddin owasi mocks India , its civilization, culture, religion and the country twiddles its thumbs... superpower? emerging power? great power ? WIP !! WTF ! a true banana republic IMHO


This post is a perfect example of exactly what I meant when I started this thread. India's alleged power (which India is not claiming) is spoken of with mockery and sarcasm every time someone wants to have a rant about something they don't like in India. The "rising power" talk is set up as a straw man to knock down.

I will keep my eyes open in the media now because I suspect that every time anyone, Indian or non Indian refers to India's status as a rising power or with "great power aspirations" it is only to offset that statement with something negative. It is more about rhetoric. Not reality. And that rhetoric is to beat India and Indians down by first claiming that they are aspiring to be a power but ha ha there is so much bullshit about it can never be. It is never about India's power, it is always about something lousy to hit India with. India and Indians are hardly jumping about saying "We are souperpawar onlee". It is people who need to mock, rant or criticize who claim that any Indian pride needs to be checked with a slap and a reminder about everything that's bad.

There is a strange sort of psychology working here and I am unable to figure it out.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 02 Jan 2013 22:39

hypothetically, if one removes the 1 billion people from India, it is all pure Earth. That is all it is.. So, even if few representatives of India aspire, is enough to the represented world what they mean and how to engage such representation.

You don't say what you want to become.. you just show it.. like Agni5, Surya, LCA, AMCA, Deep Space missions, Moon return mission for H3, etc. That also means, enough is done for growth of 1 billion people to cherish a life better than the current super power.

A "super power" is holistic view of a country, and not specific to certain areas of representations - economy, military, culture etc. JMT.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16144
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SwamyG » 02 Jan 2013 22:51

Bade: I see it the other way. Technology being a tool, can help a country in all walks of life (or prove a bane). Possessing a good tool does not enable an individual to exert his opinion on others, however others might yearn to possess the same technology. What is important is how the technology is used, no? I agree 'desire' to expand and control is a necessary characteristic.

SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16144
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SwamyG » 02 Jan 2013 23:00

Shiv:
I think it is a case of 'anointed leadership'. Whether India aspires or not, if India decides to play the game by the current rules (established by the West), countries are going to thrust leadership onto India. Whether one wants to be a role model or not, one can unfortunately can become one. Just like 'messiahship' is thrust on to individuals who exhibit a few characteristics.

India might not have aspired to be Superpower, but it does want to check China in its region, no? Here you have a country, in India, with 1.2 billion population, a rapidly growing economy, strong military, rich and varied history, 7th largest in size, a democracy, vying for regional stability and control, so why should not the World not discuss 'superpowerdom' irrespective of India's desires?

Perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who ... have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well.

J. K. ROWLING, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

ps: I am not a Harry Potter fan, just found this quote on the Internet.

"Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them". - (Quote Act II, Scene V).
William Shakespeare from Twelfth Night

pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby pentaiah » 02 Jan 2013 23:02

Change is constant is true biting cliche
isolate you wane
Open up you assimilate
Purity is non existent in nature
Nature is natural hybridizer

You go out and colonize
Return only to be colonized

Nature always reruns the Trojan story
Curiousity leads to diversity

Happy new year Avram

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 02 Jan 2013 23:09

I asked my Hispanic friend how they plan to capture parts of USA that was taken away from them? He said, they don't capture, invade a super power. They don't expand boundaries.. But, they just settle down, and mark their boundaries. True., and that is exactly they are doing.

Simple strategies but heck it works for them. I am sure we have billion ways to do it.

venkat_r
BRFite
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby venkat_r » 02 Jan 2013 23:39

So as a nation, GOI did not and doubt would ever say it wants to be a super power. Neither did China or the US. Super power is probably is in the perception of others and it is to do with the influence and power one nation has over others and its ability to influence other countries and events around the world

Nation is nothing but people and conversations and perceptions of the people is what becomes the voice of a nation, obviously few more so than the others (super power people). There is a great many people in India who would want
A. Increased economic clout for India ( to remove poverty in India)
B. Increased military clout for India ( to be able defend itself and other good nations)
C. Increased independence in foreign affairs (Ex: like not being jerked by US)
D. Create (positive ofcourse!) influence around the world

There are probably many people in India, and if I can hazard a guess, very many people on this forum, who would want all the above 4 for India. I fully accept that I would want all these for India. That's about it and there is never going to be a official project or budget to make India a super power. Infact when ever there were some rumblings from US to make India a super power, GOI has distanced itself from it as far as possible.

so does India has super power aspirations?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 03 Jan 2013 00:01

That is because GOI needs lot of process corrections, and as said, India hates change, especially a corrupted setup at helm. It (current set of leaders) would definitely not want to be in the high flying club with knee deep full of crap under their pyjamas and sadees. A process correction is required to entirely revamp our political and economic system, from infrastructure to day to day living.. we are definitely way poor than any of the advanced nations here. So, how in the world one can even talk about power, from keeping your majority of citizens under poor economy and infrastructure.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Sanku » 03 Jan 2013 00:16

venkat_r wrote:so does India has super power aspirations?


venkat_r nice post, however I would say that what you outline are aspects of a responsible power, and not necessary super power. For that need for world wide force projection etc etc start coming into picture.

I guess it is about the overwhelming degree to which a nation wants to control the world (and what are the aims)

Meanwhile, US, UK etc indeed have said and talked about their intent to be such powers, both before they became one, as they were being one, and as one.

The concepts of manifest destiny, Monroe doctrine, Rule Brittania, Pax Romana, etc etc. are all quick examples of such memes. In addition both the scholarly and the popular culture plays upon and builds upon these. (Independence day?)

So net net, yes there is a class of thought of powers ascribing to be SUPER (even more than great which is more than just a power) and it is distinct.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 03 Jan 2013 02:17

With power comes responsibility, be it what type of power - super, sub, great, regional or state. Brits were a great power, but was prevented to be a super power just because people hated them and their irresponsible behavior towards other nations. Occupying territories actually changes every game plan back to few hundred years back. Even the current super power is struggling to maintain its super power even with a small thought of occupation. The Americans are literally chewed on their gulf war and Afpak engagement in terms of sustaining their economy. There is greater 50% public response to not to wage wars for other's freedom, when they have big problems at home.

My point earlier was clear enough to clean up the mess we have in local political and power setup. None of the billion people will feel the super power democracy when their homes are in third world status (whatever that definition is - representation).. and that is going to be real hard to escape. This super power thought is silly, if one considers certain basic fundamental aspects are not rectified. Who wants to be a global cop, when one can't have a decent cop in the streets of delhi? This is a laughable matter.

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Bade » 03 Jan 2013 03:02

SwamyG wrote:Bade: I see it the other way. Technology being a tool, can help a country in all walks of life (or prove a bane). Possessing a good tool does not enable an individual to exert his opinion on others, however others might yearn to possess the same technology. What is important is how the technology is used, no? I agree 'desire' to expand and control is a necessary characteristic.

What I claimed is that the ability to develop technology, which is an offshoot of scientific creativity is what is more important than just have the ability to use a tool (technology) adapted or acquired from elsewhere to expand the economy or addressing military needs of any great power aspiration.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby shiv » 03 Jan 2013 05:27

ShauryaT wrote:Shiv ji: If the word "super power" is to be used, based on the way the poll is defined, which is largely a western construct of the word based on their world view - then it does not apply to India.

The question then becomes, what does India aspire to? Either we have the same aspirations and limited by the same aspirations that western powers have or what we have is all nonsense to cover up our inability to project power. Another way to say it is, India does not have these aspirations as the political entity called India is itself a modern construct and we have not yet figured, what we want our aspirations to be.

All this soft power, technology power, etc is nonsense for the core of power projected as we understand them is based on hard power. All other powers are ancillary to it. Everything else comes later. The above is not equal to saying only hard power is important.

I think in the new republic a section of India aspires to be a "great" power - but not a super power. A great power is one that is able to defend its core interests as its polity sees them. This aspiration is a WIP.


Shaurya, India the nation as expressed by various people has no aspiration beyond peaceful development.

Power projection can be economic, cultural or military, by only with military power projection does the other party have little choice. He is under threat of being coerced. Power projection has usually been for resources coming from outside a country and India has no option other than to project power to protect resources. The only question is what resources we can protect and how far we can project power without bases. India can pretty much project power anywhere in the Indian ocean area, but projecting power outside that area requires bases. If we want bases we need something to protect. We are never going to spend on a base simply for keeping a base say in the Pacific or Atlantic without any reason. If there is some reqource we need to protect then w will have no choice other than to maintain a base far away.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36405
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby SaiK » 03 Jan 2013 06:29

We can buy out bases from islands in the Indian Ocean/other places of interest. Many countries would offer. So, I guess instead of occupation, a better deal would be barter or trade... so get both economic and military perhaps in one strategic transaction.

tushar_m

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby tushar_m » 03 Jan 2013 09:07

"SUPERPOWER" the meaning says that not only the country is able to defend its borders against any kind of attacks but can also spare its power & forces for the friendly countries.

The first step for INDIA'S superpower ambition is to create a Marine Force that will be responsible for protecting the countries interest in foreign soil.

The second step will be to establish bases outside the country like Afghanistan ,Qatar in the west & finally send some assets for Farkhor_Air_Base

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farkhor_Air_Base

these will be enough to counter Pakistan & its notorious activities.It will also help in maintaining control over the activities of taliban & other terrorist groups in Afghanistan after US withdrawal in 2014.

The third step is to establish naval bases in Philippines ,Vietnam & other countries who are Fed up of the aggressive China armed forces .
this move will not only project power but will also help us contain China to some extents.

These moves by INDIA will say a lot of what our thinking & ambition's are & will ensure a bigger role for us in Asia.

We don't need 60% of USN assets in Asia to counter china & we have to show our power & will for the same , we don't want an outsider country(US) to be in control in Asia when we can maintain peace on our own.

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3635
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby Neela » 03 Jan 2013 14:18

Did not vote for any because this superpower dooper-power talk is worth nothing and in reality translates to nothing tangible.

India will acquire military weapons that is in line with its requirements. There is no checklist which says "Want to be a superpower? You must have items a)... b)... c)... .
Military projection will follow Indian policies wrt to its neighbors near and far. If Indian planners were following a checklist for being a superpower, surely they must have gone for global GPS instead of a regional one.

Likewise with Indian economic clout. It follows Indian requirements. There is no benchmark which says you must control X % of world GDP to be a dooper-power.

Permanent UNSC membership - an effete country like UK which has far lesser economic clout than Germany and even lesser military clout than France is a UNSC member. That is not a benchmark either.

-----
To what purpose does this label "superpower" serve. In reality , it is like wanting to be called a school bully. Do we really want to have this in our aspirations?
A decent quality of life for citizens and protecting our territory - that alone should be our real goals. When we do that, a lot more responsibilities will follow internationally. We do not need to have "being a superpower" in out targets and neither do we need to have labels for it.

member_20292
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2059
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby member_20292 » 03 Jan 2013 14:21

Being a super power means being in a spot which is the center of activity of a lot of world commerce, politics, and influence.

NYC, London---these make for the capitals of the world. Washington DC. Another.

rsharma
BRFite
Posts: 271
Joined: 02 Aug 2006 22:14
Location: Hidden Markov Model

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby rsharma » 03 Jan 2013 18:19

The term 'Super Power' is actually a misnomer. While it is intended to denominate(in superlative terms) the following 4 parameters of capabilities: military, economic, political, and cultural, it actually ascribes evil attributes such as 'hegemony' & 'intimidation' to the title-holder .

Does being a 'Super Power' naturally ascribe the quality of being a 'Responsible Power' ? History would point to the contrary.

Having said that, there are 3 super-powers in the current geopolitical arena:

(1) Western Civilization (read Christian) having its source in Europe and present seat in US.
(2) Islam (read Sunni/Wahabi/Salafi) having its source and seat in Saudi Arabia.
(3) China

What Islam lacks in Hardcore Military Capability, it makes up for it in (a) sheer number of its followers and (b) Ruthlessness of Doctrine (c) determination to Dominate.

Looking at these 3 names, the true nature of the kind of 'power' a 'Super Power' wields, becomes evident.

Many would argue that China is not up there yet, but it certainly has both - the capability, and the intent/will.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Superpower rhetoric and reality

Postby shiv » 06 Mar 2013 08:31

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... wsid=19941
India may fancy itself as a regional superpower but does not have an aircraft carrier prowling on the high seas. Its solitary carrier, the 54-year-old INS Viraat, is out of action for several months once again for a major refit to ensure it can soldier on for another three to four years.

Despite the Indian Ocean having emerged as the new strategic theatre between India and China, the Indian politico-military establishment's lack of long-term planning and timely decision-making has all but dashed the Navy's long-standing ambition to deploy two potent carrier battle groups (CBGs).

China, in contrast, is taking huge strides in the arena. After last year's commissioning of its first carrier, the 65,000-tonne Liaoning, Beijing is furiously engaged in building more to further expand its "blue-water operations''.


Pisko footnote: See - once again a reference to mythical Indian desire to be superpower is used by Rajt Pandit just to make a derogatory point. "You (Indians) think you are great, but you are actually useless"

This is the exact insulting context in which 'India" and "superpower" are used together. Most often by Indians who are trying to dramatically point out how incompetent their compatriots are.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: darshand, suryag, Vinod Ji and 48 guests