India-US Strategic News and Discussion

[svinayak]

Why should India help the Chinese

my logic was simple. Resources on planet earth are limited; but consumers too many. At the current rate of depletion, capacity has become almost maximum. One is eating too much(west) and the rest are getting crumbs. We have a historic moment now where one of the crumb eater(china) might get a significant share from what the west(mostly, the US) already has on its plate.

.

China crossed the line when they transferred the nukes to Pakistan.

[SaiK]

they are continuously crossing even now.

[Manny]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new ... 63350.aspx

I don't know about you guys... I loath Indians who are in any way sympathetic to China. I don't have the hatred towards the worst Islamist as I have for the desi leftist.

Its time India changes the school texts to show Tibet as an Independent country that has been occupied by the leftist commies and cheerleaded by the leftist commie apologists in India like Arundati Roy and her fan club spread across India.

[member_23677]

Video: U.S.-India Military Engagement

http://csis.org/multimedia/video-us-ind ... engagement

The above is a 70min CSIS video about india-US relations. They are discussing about deepening indo-us relations through military exercises.

The histories of india-US relations naturally repel each other. There's no doubt that these two states are enemies pretending to be friends. With extremism in the af-pak region getting out of hand and a rising china, the americans are compelled to find a solution. This compulsion takes a very funny turn when the americans decide to ignore everything from US activities in india to david headley to indian spies defecting to US to bankrolling pakistan as a counter to india.

It always surprises me to see a state reach out as a friend even when it's neck deep in complicity. We already see that in pakistan and china but acknowledge it as an intrinsic behavior. It's interesting to see the americans show this familiar behaviour. All animals have the trait of instinct so even when you offer it food, it approaches with caution; the fear of the unknown. In the case of indo-us relations, much is already known to us because of ready made history.

If india ignores the pacific, it's going to be militarized. India has no problem with a militarized vietnam, thailand or cambodia. I say we keep off and let the militarization begin. S Amer Latif and the CSIS can get lost.

India must let china confront US hegemony. If the chinese manage to convince the saudis to divert some of the resources(oil) to mainland china, it's good. Give a safe corridor to the chinese in the indian ocean for resource transit. A chinese military base in the middle-east is going to change everything.

Regarding manufacturing, china must dominate. There are plans by some nations to shift some plants away from china and into india. Don't fall for this trick because it weakens china against US.

The US-India relationship is going to be a generational issue

That new generation of indians are going to forget indo-us history

Are you not confident enough for India to handle the situation? Why do we need partners to rule? or grow?

[member_23677]

SSridhar, I'm familiar with the situation. My entire argument was based on the point that we don't take sides. After all, the china-US power tussle is not india's war.

Why should India help the Chinese

my logic was simple. Resources on planet earth are limited; but consumers too many. At the current rate of depletion, capacity has become almost maximum. One is eating too much(west) and the rest are getting crumbs. We have a historic moment now where one of the crumb eater(china) might get a significant share from what the west(mostly, the US) already has on its plate.

In this predicament, two things can happen:
1) West and China learn to share
2) The west and china go to war

Option no. 2 seems almost impossble because option no. 1 is there for the choosing. The flaw with option no. 1 is that it allows(with unkils permission) chinese hegemony over the far east. I don't think the far east states would like that. The aussies won't like that and nor will the japanese. Hence it's difficult for me to imagine how option no. 1 would work in practicality.

Because Indians don't need resorces right? What a stupid logic... we should be the third option and the only option. Let's show some confidence instead of being a coward.

[SSridhar]

SSridhar, I'm familiar with the situation. My entire argument was based on the point that we don't take sides. After all, the china-US power tussle is not india's war.

nvishal, not taking sides is simply impossible in the current context. That was a ruse we tried and failed before. Probably, there was some merit in it at some point of time. However, such is no longer the case, IMHO. The world is far too integrated by commerce and common concerns that taking stand in issues has become absolutely imperative whether it is a small Benin or a large India.

However, I agree that in a war between the US and PRC, we need not take sides at least initially. But, a time will come when we will be pushed to take sides because our interests may meed to be safeguarded. Again, I am not saying that in such a situation, we should plump for the US. All I am saying is that the decision should be to maximize benefits for India while minimizing risks for it. A tall order indeed. In any case, what has PRC done to stop us from taking sides ? The nasty things that China has done or is continuing to do to us do make it impractical for us to support PRC unless there is a substantial turnaround in China's policies and attitude towards us in the immediate future. With the new 'princelings' assuming positions in PRC, such a revision is not expected; only further hardening. But, this is not new for us either. We were a founding member of the non-aligned movement but we took sides on world issues even then. Our non-alignment did not exclude us from taking leading positions in anti-apartheid, anti-colonialism or third-world solidarity and anti-imperialism. Unfortunately, state craft is a fine balancing art between conflicting requirements and it is a lot more so now than ever before. In many of the crises that occurred around the time of our Independence, India took a leading position. It did not remain neutral.

[Christopher Sidor]

^^^^
Remaining neutral is not an option. Not anymore. We inhabit the same small 3rd rock from our sun. But taking side should not immediately mean taking american side.

Our interests and american interests are not one. They are aligned and will remain aligned till either of two thing happen
1) America gives up its primacy in Pacific or
2) If PRC changes fundamentally like Soviet Union/Yugoslavia did or like South-Korea/Japan did.

In both the cases we can see America antagonism against PRC diminishing substantially. But our troubles with PRC will not be altered if any of the above two cases were to occur.

Moreover turn our eyes west of India and right upto Europe, I see our interests diverging from the American one substantially.

So our tango with America will be a short one, by historical standards.

[nvishal]

SSridhar, the existing apparatus for maintaining balance(pak v/s india v/s china v/s US) won't cease until pak and china become a liability for US/west and vice versa.

This should explain to you why I welcome chinas rise.

Af-Pak had already became a liability after the 9/11 attacks. The ongoing attempts by the west to restrain it's af-pak monster is already a failure largely because of the internecine nature of warfare between the ethnic groups in that region.

The rise of china is going to threaten wests allies in that region. Follow this trail and think about it for a moment.

[abhischekcc]

US's Pakistan policy is a subset of its West Asia policy, and its India policy was (under clinton) a subset of its China policy. Under Obama, India policy is subset of APAC policy (larger than China), hence the positive vibes as they need us to counter China.

US tilt for India is actively being promoted by the dunces in Beijing who keep needling us.

[chanakyaa]

That is a very convuluted way of looking at the world. A weak rupee makes our exports more competitive, and thus creates jobs. How is that unworthy or undesirable?

Exchange rates are more a reflection of economic realities (demand and supply) rather than political alignement (although that is an indirect factor).

ABCC garu,

Your view is extremely naive on the other extreme.

A weak rupee vs USD makes does our exports more competitive, but do we export to USA? Mainly IT/ITES etc? That means the benefits go to the ITES employed, who will pay taxes.

But at the same time A weak rupee also makes the other imports (there are a ton of them) very expensive and the burden has to be born by entire India.

Another issue we do not realize is that rupee gets weaker against majority of the currencies in a convoluted manner.

If you take Chinese yuan as an example, how can India balance the trade with this kind of type economic policies?

Thanks for your comments RMY. What I was trying to highlight in my earlier comment was that, monopoly on keeping oil/gas prices in dollars while printing trillions without permission of the holders devalues the values of India's holdings of USD. If India is getting economically stronger why is it that prices of assets, of net debtor nations (west), as indirectly reflected in exchange more expensive?

[nvishal]

US tilt for India is actively being promoted by the dunces in Beijing who keep needling us.

The future of indo-china relationship was already established in 62. So the chinese are afraid whether india will extract revenge by aligning with the west. Their best bet to counter india is now at this moment when its militarily inferior to the chinese. Hence the constant irritation to india from the chinese.

[eklavya]

The histories of india-US relations naturally repel each other. There's no doubt that these two states are enemies pretending to be friends.

Which cave in Waziristan are you dreaming up this stuff? China poses a direct security challenge to Indian and US interests. Indian (and Japanese, and S Korean, and Vietnamese, and Filipino) security interests are aligned with the US on this point.

India must let china confront US hegemony.

It might look like "US hegemony" in a cave in Waziristan. In New Delhi, its Chinese actions on our borders and sponsorship of Pakistani terrorism that need to be dealt with.

Regarding manufacturing, china must dominate.

Rubbish

There are plans by some nations to shift some plants away from china and into india. Don't fall for this trick because it weakens china against US.

Plants in India are in India's interests. A weak China is also in India's interests. You are spouting the type of nonsense that one would expect from a Waziristani cave dweller.

[eklavya]

The future of indo-china relationship was already established in 62. So the chinese are afraid whether india will extract revenge by aligning with the west. Their best bet to counter india is now at this moment when its militarily inferior to the chinese. Hence the constant irritation to india from the chinese.

China has a second rate military managed by third rate leaders: they are unprofessional, corrupt to the core, and stupid to boot. They will never risk the certain humiliation of a full-fledged military conflict with India. That will be the end of the CPC.

[member_23370]

China being a third rate power does not mean India should not push into pacific. IN needs beefing up of ANC with more ships and deploy regularly in SEA.

[harbans]

Indian FP is built on 'a school boyish mob good feelingness' put in jargon spouted by academics trained specifically on that 'feel goodish' syndrome. Also those who see through the naivety in the above fall to the rhetoric of 'real politic' and are more vehement, than they make sense. It's easy to talk of Indian 'Interests' for example but exactly what are Indian Interests based on? Spiting the US? Allowing China to take over the manufacturing sector, allowing Chinese to destroy the only power that can give them a military punch, or have bases in the Indian Ocean? Or is Indian interest defined as the left defines it, or as those that want India to be turned into an isolated NK by cutting off all FDI or by a Musharaff or Kiyani type Ghazi who wets his pants dreaming of Sharia in Moghulistan and a green flag hurling over the Red fort, or a Bal Thackeray who admires Adolf Hitler?

The definition of Indian Interests is still not chalked out even here on this forum. It is mired in controversy the 'argumentative Indian' so typifies. In Calcutta 1962, Jyoti Basu declared to a large crowd, 'What Invasion? If the Chinese are invading India would i be having an election rally here and addressing you all?' much to cheers and acceptance of the logic doled out by the erstwhile commie.

Core interests are always rooted in Value systems that may reflect in the doctrine of the state. Understanding that maybe intrinsic or take years or never to comprehend. It is within the gambit of those value systems we must seek out alliances, like others with other value systems. India's biggest and most major FP folly has been to give the short stick to value systems in favor of real politic/ idealism (Nehruvian, Gandhian, Anti Gandhian etc)/ rhetoric. India bought the school boyish dogma of 'Non interference in the affairs of others' as some sort of high sounding mannah at face value.

One cannot EVER reconcile with those that share opposing value systems in permanence. So while some Indians and lots of Paki's may share cultural or economic aspirations, they will never reconcile on the type of value systems they want for society. A Paki is rooted to Islamizing India, an Indian presently does not know whether to want a Hindu state, a secular state, or join some bandwagon against corruption, or back a China, back a Junta against a Democratic Aung Syu Kii, or back Hamas against Israel or Gaddaffi or an Assad. We are completely unsure. However China is sure, so is Pakistan. They have not boxed themselves in an ideological wall of non interference in other states. Hence our confused FP usually ends up backing the wrong horse, obviously in the end for all the wrong reasons and then still does not have a clue what are our real interests.

If our core value systems our really based on Pluralist, Liberalism, Truth, non discriminatory tradition then we must seek to strengthen those forces within and outside our present state boundaries. If we don't then we must make friends with China, Pakistan, Saudi and shun the US. However, If we do intend strengthening our own core based the above values we must engage more with the West, SE Asia, encourage other totalitarian states to pursue our core values. This must be followed with passion amongst our neighborhood specifically. We must seek to mould our neighborhood in our cast. Not allow them to mould our values in their cast. To do that we need to have a pair, to tell China what we really feel about Tibet, Kailash and Mansarover. To tell the Junta in Myanmar that yes we can engage you in business but you must give encourage our value systems within your borders..and so on. Standing by those value systems brings credibility and as each totalitarian command and control systems comes crashing down, gets loyalty from those that really matter..those who share our value systems. It's not an easy road. But decision and policy making become easier when focused in that manner. History also shows that those that believe in these kind of value systems have prospered economically, diplomatically, militarily have more clout and much more.

If India gets out of it's knee jerk/ ostrich like approach to FP, there will be many who will consider India to be hegemonistic. We will be called names what tin pots call the US probably some with good reason. But in time Truth will be left standing alone. Present day India and the West surely share many values which ordinary Indics have always called their own. We have to keep those values in mind while we seek to protect our territories, seek to turn around neighborhood Junta's to see like us, to develop economically etc. There will be exceptions in the dealings for sure. But what must consistently be ground down, is that we don't compromise on these core values and we would like to see them win all around our neighborhood and beyond. Our strategic engagement with the US, West, SE Asia, Japan must be seen through those prisms alone. If not one is just p*issing in the wind. Nothing really will come off it.

[nvishal]

@eklavya
Thats a lot of rhetoric and very little context.

Why don't you give us a little summary about the nature of relationship between China and the US.

[nvishal]

@harbans
If the below is what you are hoping for...

India + US + Far east nations
v/s
China

...then no it's not going to happen

---------

Now some of these nations in the far east are US allies. Both china and these far east states are US partners. The dilemma for the americans is that they have to choose one

[harbans]

If the below is what you are hoping for...

India + US + Far east nations
v/s
China

Vishal Ji. No i don't hope or otherwise for that, if you read what i wrote. I want India to understand where it's interests lie. And these don't lie with a Totalitarian US/ SE Asia vs a Pluralist, liberal Han China or a Vice versa. It's not one nation/ race against another. It's always been and will be about a conflict of value systems. It was never about US vs Japan or US vs Germany. It was about how much you will allow one type of value system to encroach upon yourself. Japan, Germany today are US's best friends and support each other on many fronts and fora. It's because they share a lot of value systems post WW2 just for an example. Wrt China i don't hope for conflict.

But i do hope China becomes a Pluralist nation and embraces our value systems. That will entail Tibetan freedom and Kailash/ Mansarover coming into the Indian fold. It will end India's Northern border disputes with China. Chinese moving out of Tibet will also ensure much lesser Chinese cooperation with Pakistan. So primarily i would put what i really want of China as stated above and go about egging the CPC to open up more, rather than blandly appeasing them as we have done till now. In the 50's we would have never have acknowledged Chinese aggression over Tibet and played the appeasement card of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai etc. Our problem in FP has always been of assuming we can reconcile 2 polar opposite value systems by appeasement. No we can not reconcile Chinese aggression of Tibet without giving away the NE, Nepal, Bodh Gaya and getting Pakistan armed to the teeth.

[nvishal]

harbans, take this cherished indic variable and catapult it into the sea. Some members on this board are using some powerful indigenous hallucinogen and coming up with unrealistic goals and ideas. If there was a ban button next to the user, i would have used it.

Have you ever gone through anything that describes what the han really want, their ideology?

Okay, forget what is claimed in the books and the journals. "Claims" are nothing compared to actual "actions". Go back in time and make a list of all the geo-political changes that the han have done. Now re-arrange these changes and you'll get a pattern. There is no excuse for naiveness. There is no such thing as benevolence in geo-politics.

[JE Menon]

>>The definition of Indian Interests is still not chalked out even here on this forum.

Actually it has been, but no one is paying interest or taking it seriously Our interest is simple and articulated in a very general way: prosperity and security for India and peace in our neighbourhood and in the world. This means no one taking our land, and no one threatening to undermine our economy or our people's prosperity. Other than a general variation on that theme in terms of the language, no one is going to go into greater detail and commit specifically.

Major powers are pissed off about this, which is why they keep saying they don't know "what India wants". We only talk in general principles. Why get into specifics? It will only increase the costs, which are not low to begin with.

[eklavya]

@eklavya
Thats a lot of rhetoric and very little context.

Why don't you give us a little summary about the nature of relationship between China and the US.

nvishal, your relationship with reality can be summarised in the context of a Waziristani cave dweller's rhetoric.

[eklavya]

Have you ever gone through anything that describes what the han really want, their ideology?

Tell us what they want, what they really really want (in addition to Arunachal, Ladakh, Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Senkaku, Paracel, and the whole of the South China Sea).

Okay, forget what is claimed in the books and the journals. "Claims" are nothing compared to actual "actions". Go back in time and make a list of all the geo-political changes that the han have done.

China gave the Pakistani terrorists nuclear weapons. No newspapers in your cave?

Now re-arrange these changes and you'll get a pattern. There is no excuse for naiveness.

Have you ever tried following your own advice?

[nvishal]

@eklavya
You'll be talking to yourself from now on

[eklavya]

^^^^^
Ha ha. Truth hurts the caveman.

[JE Menon]

Cut out the personal stuff guys...

[harbans]

This means no one taking our land, and no one threatening to undermine our economy or our people's prosperity. Other than a general variation on that theme in terms of the language, no one is going to go into greater detail and commit specifically.

^ Menon Ji, precisely what i meant wrt the bolded part. However Interests like no one taking our land, undermining economy and peoples prosperity apply to those who also wish Mughalistan on us, or those who may want a Single party dictatorship, or it can be said these aims/ interests apply to every country of any political, religious hue. Fact is undermining our economy, prosperity has been done by politicians of every hue in India since independence for that matter, no outsiders needed to do so. So when we talk of 'Indian Interests' they really lie beyond the green shaded items you mentioned. There are lots of ideologies that can achieve that. Mughalistan Ghazi's are also completely consistent with those 'Indian interests'.

But then we will say, no we don't want to be ruled under Sharia, tin pot dictators etc. Why not if these interests are achieved. After all many Islamic countries and Totalitarian regimes are better off than India in all those 'interests'. Answer obviously lies in the fact that we don't want to achieve those generalized interests with value systems not in synch with ours. So it is about value systems and not just roti, kapda, jameen. Indian FP must realize to look beyond this RKJ for thier interests, focus and a more fluid and easier decision making process. When we do so, the import of good relations with the US, West and SE Asia, engaging and exhorting similar forces in our neighborhood come seamlessly into the picture. It is important to go beyond the generalizations of "Indian Interests'.

If an India achieves Sharia or totalitarian rule that promises the moon under RKJ of Indian interests, how many Rakshaks will go against India itself?

[Johann]

It's very easy to either over-hype or under-estimate the threat that the PRC represents. I think there's a few things that must always be kept in mind for a realistic picture of their strengths and weaknesses.

1. The CPC's number one priority is to remain in power everywhere it is in power right now. So knowing what the CPC sees as key to its survival is vital. Delivering economic growth and repress anti-party challenges has been the twin focus since Tienanmen Square.

2. The PRC has spent far more on internal (including internet monitoring and censorship) than external security since 2004, when it became aware of how potentially fragile control was. The color revolutions, the Arab Spring, all have Party terrified. The CPC fears its own citizens more than any external enemy. That makes it extra fearful about Tibet.

3. As long as Chinese growth is manufacturing and export driven, access to resources is synonymous with the CPC's survival. China is aggressively acquires influence to make sure it has access to resources.

4. Nationalism sells in China. That's another factor in the sabre rattling. The newly rich Chinese public likes it when their government acts assertively, especially in the neighborhood. This is fed by government propaganda creating a feedback effect that has unexpected consequences even for the state.

5. China's demography is *rapidly* changing. Its a country that's ageing quickly, and where the ratio of wage earners to dependents is in sharp transition. It can not waste bodies in the way that Mao used to, and ordinary people have a lot more to lose, and have more ways to threaten the state with dissent.

6. The PLA has made real strides in both high tech asymmetric warfare and strategic mobility of its forces. It is much more capable than it was a decade or two before. This is a factor in the sabre rattling they've engaged in.

7. Corruption in the PLA is as pervasive as any other branch of the government and party. There are estimates that as much as 40% of the already secret budget disappears. In that sense we may not have to worry about Chinese secrecy around defence spending, because what they are hiding is garages full of Bentleys and Ferraris.

8. The PRC's ability to cheaply arm anyone with everything from AKs to nuclear tipped cruise missiles is a strategic weapon they use whenever they perceive the economic and security costs to be low. It has replaced the export of revolution as their favored tool of covert warfare.

9. Chinese intelligence gathering is overwhelmingly aimed at intellectual property and technology acquisition both for commercial and strategic purposes. The next priority is dissidents of any sort, and then foreign decision making. Whether through hacking or human sources its pervasive, highly distributed and persistent.

[JE Menon]

harbans, boss, I will reply shortly ... maybe an hour or so (Times NOW has just started a documentary on 26/11 - a joint production between Propublica & Frontline - Sebastian Rotella narrating I think; got to watch it).

Meanwhile, pls clarify: "precisely what i meant wrt the bolded part."

Do you mean that bolded part is what you meant, or did you really want to ask me "precisely what is meant wrt the bolded part?" ...

[RamaY]

[quote=]>>The definition of Indian Interests is still not chalked out even here on this forum.
[/quote]

One rendering...
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1284308

[JE Menon]

>>However Interests like no one taking our land, undermining economy and peoples prosperity apply to those who also wish Mughalistan on us,

Internal or external? If they are externals, then how are they going to do it without aggression. If internal, how are they going to impose it on majority without aggression? If combination of both, the same issues arise... All they can do is destabilise; and that is what we are seeing now. And we are dealing with it haphazardly, not optimally, of course.

>>or those who may want a Single party dictatorship,

True, and if they succeed in imposing that through some sort of “velvet revolution” or by stealth or get in through the electoral process, they will face the same challenge vis a vis our core interest...

>>or it can be said these aims/ interests apply to every country of any political, religious hue.

True, only the parameters vary. And this is where things begin to get specific, and that is something I doubt any Indian government will define except in the broadest possible terms.

>>Fact is undermining our economy, prosperity has been done by politicians of every hue in India since independence for that matter, no outsiders needed to do so.

And that’s one of the reasons for the lack of specifics; this enables “flexibility” for the political class, and enough slippery space so nothing looks really like a retreat; the flip side is that nothing really has to be an advance either.

>>So when we talk of 'Indian Interests' they really lie beyond the green shaded items you mentioned.

Who is “we” here? You will note that it is hard to even get consensus on BRF about what our interests really are, in the specifics. There so many variations of what India should really be like on the forum itself that, if you extrapolate that to all of the involved population in India, a consensus is likely never to be achieved. Hence the vagueness and the refusal to be pinned down.

>>There are lots of ideologies that can achieve that. Mughalistan Ghazi's are also completely consistent with those 'Indian interests'.

They way we have broadly described it, yes. You are right. And this will help get the buy in (or avoid the sell out ) from those among us who are still hankering melancholically and nostalgically for Mughalistan. Remember ours is a country where some of those yearning for Mughalistan won’t even sing the national song...

>>But then we will say, no we don't want to be ruled under Sharia, tin pot dictators etc. Why not if these interests are achieved.

Because the Indian people are for the most part not hankering for Sharia or Mughalistan, including substantial numbers of Muslims one can be fairly sure. Is there a case that the current system cannot deliver the safeguarding of interests and that Mughalistan can do it better? If yes, someone has to put it forward. If not, the majority will win in a democratic set up. Just like the Mughalistanis will have a hard time accepting a “Hindu republic”, I suspect the majority of Indians, whether Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jain or Jewish will have difficulty in accepting Sharia. This is also why it is not advisable to couch our strategic interests in ideological or religious terms.

>>After all many Islamic countries and Totalitarian regimes are better off than India in all those 'interests'.

Not really. I don’t know of any Islamic country which is better off than India in “all” those interests. Economically better on a per capita basis yes, and certainly you will also find various countries better off in certain human development parameters... But in several of the basic human rights and freedoms – choice, equality under law, faith, etc... India is ahead which is probably why the Indian Muslim is probably as close to the dream of a “caliphate” lifestyle as any pretender in the Islamic world. A poor Muslim girl can therefore aspire to become anything in India, without any inequities imposed by the state, and her only limitations will be those that are self- and society imposed, apart from the general hardships of getting from station A to station B applicable to anyone regardless of religion. Or a moderately well off middle class Muslim boy can become the chief of internal intelligence, or a poor Sikh boy can become the prime minister.

>>Answer obviously lies in the fact that we don't want to achieve those generalized interests with value systems not in synch with ours. So it is about value systems and not just roti, kapda, jameen.

You will agree that “we” here includes a number of value systems as India comprises many religions of which the large absolute majority is Hindu. So there is no single value system that we can call “ours” with reference to religion because it will definitely conflict with those who are not of that faith.

Hence the sleight of hand called “secularism” which is used as a medium through which the Indian state can appear to be impartial and inclusive – not very different from the “English” solution to the language issue. (This is another thing which infuriates Pakistan because we have claimed secularism as our own – while at the same time, since independence, manifestations of Hinduism itself have only increased – in almost every field, at least from their perspective).

What this means, and what is obvious, is that India is “secular” only because it is Hindu in its essence and its majority; we do not claim to be a “Hindu” state – unlike Germany or the US or the UK which claim to be “Christian”. They too, will have to take a lesson from India in this respect in the coming millennium, if they want to be “inclusive” states. The joke, which the colonial power tried to play on India, will in the final analysis be on them.

>>If an India achieves Sharia or totalitarian rule that promises the moon under RKJ of Indian interests, how many Rakshaks will go against India itself?

I don’t know, but I know I will be one. I can see no circumstance in which Sharia or totalitarian rule will be in the interest of India because that sort of rule can only harm the majority of its people – how can there be prosperity in that case? Further, if the majority of the people are unhappy, how can India be secure? In my understanding therefore, if the Hindus are happy, all of India will be happy including its minorities. As far as I can understand, Hindus are not demanding special privileges over followers of other faiths. If reason prevails, Hinduism will only strengthen.

This is my description of the situation as I see it. It does not necessarily mean that I agree with all aspects.

[chanakyaa]

[quote]It's very easy to either over-hype or under-estimate the threat that the PRC represents. I think there's a few things that must always be kept in mind for a realistic picture of their strengths and weaknesses.

1. The CPC's number one priority is to remain in power everywhere it is in power right now. So knowing what the CPC sees as key to its survival is vital. Delivering economic growth and repress anti-party challenges has been the twin focus since Tienanmen Square.

2. The PRC has spent far more on internal (including internet monitoring and censorship) than external security since 2004, when it became aware of how potentially fragile control was. The color revolutions, the Arab Spring, all have Party terrified. The CPC fears its own citizens more than any external enemy. That makes it extra fearful about Tibet.

3. As long as Chinese growth is manufacturing and export driven, access to resources is synonymous with the CPC's survival. China is aggressively acquires influence to make sure it has access to resources.

4. Nationalism sells in China. That's another factor in the sabre rattling. The newly rich Chinese public likes it when their government acts assertively, especially in the neighborhood. This is fed by government propaganda creating a feedback effect that has unexpected consequences even for the state.

5. China's demography is *rapidly* changing. Its a country that's ageing quickly, and where the ratio of wage earners to dependents is in sharp transition. It can not waste bodies in the way that Mao used to, and ordinary people have a lot more to lose, and have more ways to threaten the state with dissent.

6. The PLA has made real strides in both high tech asymmetric warfare and strategic mobility of its forces. It is much more capable than it was a decade or two before. This is a factor in the sabre rattling they've engaged in.

7. Corruption in the PLA is as pervasive as any other branch of the government and party. There are estimates that as much as 40% of the already secret budget disappears. In that sense we may not have to worry about Chinese secrecy around defence spending, because what they are hiding is garages full of Bentleys and Ferraris.

8. The PRC's ability to cheaply arm anyone with everything from AKs to nuclear tipped cruise missiles is a strategic weapon they use whenever they perceive the economic and security costs to be low. It has replaced the export of revolution as their favored tool of covert warfare.

9. Chinese intelligence gathering is overwhelmingly aimed at intellectual property and technology acquisition both for commercial and strategic purposes. The next priority is dissidents of any sort, and then foreign decision making. Whether through hacking or human sources its pervasive, highly distributed and persistent.[/quote]


All sounds good. But here is how international lenders see the performance of citizens of two countries.

Over last 10 year the long-term outlook of China
Moved from A- to a better standing of A+ (net improvement)

Over last 10 year the long-term outlook of India
Moved from BB+ (not so bad) to BBB- (pathetic, net deterioration over same period)

This means, an Indian pays little more in tax (i.e. interest) to global banking cartel than a Chinese. Savings are huge. These savings can not be used to nat. security or energy infra..

[Johann]

[quote]It's very easy to either over-hype or under-estimate the threat that the PRC represents. I think there's a few things that must always be kept in mind for a realistic picture of their strengths and weaknesses.
...

All sounds good. But here is how international lenders see the performance of citizens of two countries.

Over last 10 year the long-term outlook of China
Moved from A- to a better standing of A+ (net improvement)

Over last 10 year the long-term outlook of India
Moved from BB+ (not so bad) to BBB- (pathetic, net deterioration over same period)

This means, an Indian pays little more in tax (i.e. interest) to global banking cartel than a Chinese. Savings are huge. These savings can not be used to nat. security or energy infra..

[/quote]

Hi Chanakyaa,

The 9 points I posted suggest that the translation of that difference in economic performance into a greater force projection capacity beyond their lines of actual control is difficult and incredibly inefficient for the PRC. The growing need for internal security is tying them down, as is mindblowing levels of corruption in the armed forces, and a jingoistic nationalism that is making China more adversaries than friends.

On the other hand there is a synergy between their industrial espionage, their growing dual-use manufacturing base, and their willingness to consider transferring *all* kinds of weapons and even manufacturing skills to the enemies of their enemies. That is what we all have to watch out for.

Does that make sense?

[VikramS]

Regarding India-US-China:

First of all we have to realize that there exists a G2, a US-China understanding. The Chinese had a free run in Africa; but they acted like neo-colonists leaving space for India and others to make inroads. The Chinese will need the lands of Americas to feed their population; their share of arable land is very small for their population.

With the Fed monetizing US debt the need for Chinese Treasury buyers has gone down a lot. But the world is inter-linked like never before, hence it will become much harder to change the status-quo with established powers. When I say established power, I mean the following:
(1) A well-defined, recognized, stable form of government with time-honored traditions of transfer of power.
(2) Armed Forces with the ability to defend their borders, and project power if needed.
(3) A political class which honors (1) and recognizes the importance of (2), and has the will to use (2) when its interests are threatened.

The US clearly passes all these tests. The Chinese have a problem with (1). Their power structure is not truly representative and every time there is a power transition (10 year), fears of infighting and revolt come up. Till the 70s, millions of Chinese died thanks to the shenanigans of her leaders.

India has big problem with (3). And that is her biggest challenge. She is in the grips of small but extremely strong, foreign backed power centers who have a deathly grip on all aspects of Indian life and commerce. Her own longer term interests have been thrown completely aside, for the interests of these power centers. The non-political institutions which can provide a continuity and vision to guide her policy are either non-existent or do not get the air-time necessary to be effective.

The Middle-East all the way from our Western Borders to Saharan Africa clearly lacks #1, and wil continue to be a zone of instability and where the needs and interests of the big-power will collide. And this is where Russia comes in.

IMHO, when it comes to analyzing US versus the rest, Russia is a much bigger player than it is made out to be. The US is more likely to lock horns with Russia and than China. Russia still has some capability of projecting power in its neighborhood. And that includes the Middle East. It is said that the day the power of the US ended was when GW Bush left Georgia at the mercy of the Russians, while they were asking "Where is NATO".

On the other hand, China is not a front-line player in the Middle East. It provides political support and some arms. But they do not have the capability to project their force into the Middle East.

Most US-China conflicts are happening in China's backyard. And they are primarily a result of the Chinese hubris making the "peaceful rise" project an utter failure. It is this lack of soft-power, a reflection of their internal power structures which has allowed the US to carry the shield in China's neighborhood. I do not think anything will happen on the US-China front, independently of anything else happening. The US sees itself as a Pacific power and the ASEAN countries welcome her presence given the periodic emission of hot gasses by the dragon.

The challenge for India will be when the Russia-US interests collide. As the source of Energy Supply to Western Europe, Russia has a set of reluctant allies who are left vulnerable to her. It is very likely that the current situation of uncertainty in the Mid-East will continue. The Russians will provide enough military and diplomatic support, with the help of the Chinese, to deter the West. And the West lacks the internal political support and the finances to escalate.

During the Syrian vote in the UN, the Russians were a bit surprised at the way Indians voted (IIRC, India abstained after a long lecture). There will be more such challenges for India in the future. And managing those are of up most real importance to India, then trying to determine which side to take in case in the extremely unlikely case, the US & China go for it.

[SaiK]

I think the secret strategy lies in not telling the world what India wants. What India wants can't be said 'cause, we are not choosers right now, and are not on level playing field with P5 in all respects. for that matter, what irks the chinese is they are not in level playing field with P4, and so on so forth till P2 getting pissed off with P1.

So, essentially if India becomes P1, which means people of India actually feels the country is transformed into an advanced nation, with no requirement stone left unturned .. it can say with respect P6 >= P1. Right now, we do have something that is not in the Venn diagram of any Ps. so, that gives our fundamentals some strong points to hold on.

long way to go, considering our existing state/status. .. so, it is okay if all the rest of the world gets pissed off! we should focus on those P matching games, that actually benefits us, and pushes to 1:1 relationship with the best P we take on.

[RamaY]

All sounds good. But here is how international lenders see the performance of citizens of two countries.

Over last 10 year the long-term outlook of China
Moved from A- to a better standing of A+ (net improvement)

Over last 10 year the long-term outlook of India
Moved from BB+ (not so bad) to BBB- (pathetic, net deterioration over same period)

This means, an Indian pays little more in tax (i.e. interest) to global banking cartel than a Chinese. Savings are huge. These savings can not be used to nat. security or energy infra..

+108

Indian leadership and administration has to become better at executing national projects, which will reflect in mood of the nation and economic outlook.

Don't know of any national project that is executed well and completed in past few years

[JE Menon]

>>Indian leadership and administration has to become better at executing national projects

Yes. Exponentially.

[harbans]

Not really. I don’t know of any Islamic country which is better off than India in “all” those interests. Economically better on a per capita basis yes, and certainly you will also find various countries better off in certain human development parameters... But in several of the basic human rights and freedoms – choice, equality under law, faith, etc... India is ahead which is probably why the Indian Muslim is probably as close to the dream of a “caliphate” lifestyle as any pretender in the Islamic world. A poor Muslim girl can therefore aspire to become anything in India, without any inequities imposed by the state, and her only limitations will be those that are self- and society imposed, apart from the general hardships of getting from station A to station B applicable to anyone regardless of religion. Or a moderately well off middle class Muslim boy can become the chief of internal intelligence, or a poor Sikh boy can become the prime minister.

Menon Ji, almost every Islamic country in the ME has a better per cap income and more secure borders than we have on our North and South. If a countries core interests were just securing borders and a per cap income then sure many totalitarian regimes and Islamic states have done better than us as things stand. Yet you mention basic freedoms and rights. That is what i mean to say. We ultimately must come above the trite definititions of 'Interests' to what value systems we seek to live by. These include equality under law, faith, choice, human rights, freedoms. All Value systems that are not prevalent in Islamic States.

When we seek those value systems we also try and ensure we back those value systems starting in our neighborhood. We seek to form alliances and strategic partnerships based on those value systems. That is exactly why we can never have strategic alliances with totalitarian regimes and Sharia states. That is why a confused policy of appeasement will never work.

Who is “we” here? You will note that it is hard to even get consensus on BRF about what our interests really are, in the specifics. There so many variations of what India should really be like on the forum itself that, if you extrapolate that to all of the involved population in India, a consensus is likely never to be achieved. Hence the vagueness and the refusal to be pinned down.

Menon Ji, when we look beyond the 'trite'/ common place definitions we assume are 'Indian interests' and associate value systems we see things much better in perspective. It is very easy to define ourselves with sets of values that we cannot live without. Freedom of choice, equality of opportunity, choice, human rights values that you espouse are much more critical to Indian core interests than one assumes here. They are also encompassing and not difficult to define. Yet every time we try and appease China on Tibet, the Junta in Myanmar by ignoring the freedom movement there, or Pakistan by some concessions we make a dent on these very value systems we cherish as we don't demonstrate the necessary will to really protect our core interests.

So there is no single value system that we can call “ours” with reference to religion because it will definitely conflict with those who are not of that faith.

This is where i differ. On one hand you point above value systems cherished like equality, truth, choice, freedoms etc, so why the linkage to faith. Standing by those value systems is in itself the faith we seek to define our nationhood by and should be and not some ritualistic orthodox dogma. All Hindu's don't believe in the above value systems for sure, neither do all Muslims, but we can see the majority of us Indians do believe in these. We need to strengthen this core much more against the forces seeking to undermine these values. We need to put into place those that want to appease China, or root for a China-India-Pak axis against the West, US etc. An Axis of China-India- Pak and i'll promptly join hands with the viled West to destroy the India that stands for that. Or i will join hands against a Sharia or Totalitarian India. So ultimately we have to move away from the vagueness and 'flexibility' on our interpretations of interests and link them with value systems.

PS: Ramay Ji..have answered and asked some queries in Off Topic thread. Thanks.

[RamaY]

That is a very convuluted way of looking at the world. A weak rupee makes our exports more competitive, and thus creates jobs. How is that unworthy or undesirable?

Exchange rates are more a reflection of economic realities (demand and supply) rather than political alignement (although that is an indirect factor).

ABCC garu,

Your view is extremely naive on the other extreme.

A weak rupee vs USD makes does our exports more competitive, but do we export to USA? Mainly IT/ITES etc? That means the benefits go to the ITES employed, who will pay taxes.

But at the same time A weak rupee also makes the other imports (there are a ton of them) very expensive and the burden has to be born by entire India.

Another issue we do not realize is that rupee gets weaker against majority of the currencies in a convoluted manner.

If you take Chinese yuan as an example, how can India balance the trade with this kind of type economic policies?

Thanks for your comments RMY. What I was trying to highlight in my earlier comment was that, monopoly on keeping oil/gas prices in dollars while printing trillions without permission of the holders devalues the values of India's holdings of USD. If India is getting economically stronger why is it that prices of assets, of net debtor nations (west), as indirectly reflected in exchange more expensive?

Some more info

http://www.economist.com/node/21560263

A 2010 study by America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics found that, at just under a dollar an hour, labour costs (including social-security costs and taxes) were similar to China’s and just 3% of American levels. Since the data were collected the rupee has fallen by a third against the renminbi and a fifth against the dollar, making things even cheaper. And those data only included elite workers in the “official” sector—an unskilled labourer might get four dollars a day. Unadjusted for productivity, Indian labour is dirt cheap.

[Rony]

Bill O'Reilly comes up with new interpretations, says Christianity is not a religion but a philosophy.Christmas tree is not religious but a secular thing.

[nvishal]

Israel pips US in anti-tank guided missile supply to India

Defence ministry sources said the plan to go in for the American FGM-148 Javelin ATGMs has "virtually been shelved" because of Washington's reluctance to provide full military knowhow - licensed "transfer of technology (ToT)'' - to allow India to indigenously manufacture the "tank killers'' in large numbers after an initial off-the-shelf purchase.

The Javelin imbroglio has once again rekindled long-held fears in the Indian defence establishment about the US not being a reliable long-term supplier of cutting-edge military technology. India also detests American conditions on "intrusive end-user inspections'' of weapons sold to its armed forces.

The AGTM project, in contrast, involves ToT since the 1.13-million Army wants to equip all its 356 infantry battalions with the man-portable missiles as an effective counter to Pakistani and Chinese main battle tanks. A bulk of the estimated 2,000 launchers and 24,000 missiles required for this are planned for production by defence PSU Bharat Dynamics (BDL) after getting requisite ToT from the selected foreign vendor.

With General Bikram Singh identifying infantry modernization as a major thrust area, the Army wants to complete the induction of these 2.5-km range advanced ATGMs by the end of the 12th Plan (2017).

This is a logical decision.