Indian Foreign Policy

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby panduranghari » 21 Aug 2014 14:36

Karan Dixit wrote:
I am not suggesting India purposely downplay its relations with Japan for it will be extremely unwise. What I am saying is that India's current priority should be BRICS. Advancement of BRICS is vital for Indian national interest. Relationship with Japan is also very important for India. I am in complete agreement with you that we need to be very tactful in dealing with nations. India should not do or say anything which is not necessary from Indian perspective.


Japan has the technology but are loaded up in debt. India has limited technology and certainly are not as bad in terms of debt:GDP ratio like Japan. BRCS cannot give what Japan can give India. How confident are you that Japan can truly free itself from American influence. Japan is like UK in many regards. A Lost nation.

Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Arjun » 02 Sep 2014 09:32

With bricks and mortar, Modi puts a foreign policy in place

Insight into Modi's emerging foreign policy doctrine from TOI's Indrani Bagchi.

The spokes would be the countries India will engage intensively which would assist the development of his core principles.

These would be Japan, Israel, Germany, Singapore, Canada and the US, not always in that order. These are countries that India will invite to help transform India, its economy, its skill-sets, its cities and its technology.

Interesting list of countries. I would think Russia needs to be included in this group as well. Any thoughts from other members?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 04 Sep 2014 22:57

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140904/j ... Ainyifn-os



Diplomat who made Rajiv go red in the face
- Venkateswaran takes a secret to his grave but a foreign bride anecdote remains to be retold
K.P. NAYAR


New Delhi, Sept. 3: A diplomat of a rare breed who made civil servants display the rarer asset of a spine died yesterday in Bangalore aged 84.

A.P. Venkateswaran was dismissed as foreign secretary at a nationally televised media conference by then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in January 1987. He resigned within hours before Rajiv had a chance to put his pronouncement on paper.

Venkateswaran took many circumstantial factors that contributed to his dismissal to the grave because Rajiv sought — and he gave — an assurance to the Prime Minister that he would maintain the confidentiality and the dignity of his office and would not launder any dirty linen in public.

Rajiv’s equation with Venkateswaran soured after an incident in which Sonia Gandhi played an unwitting part, an incident which I have checked with multiple sources. In bygone years, an IFS officer who wished to marry a foreigner had to write two letters before tying the knot.

One letter sought permission to marry a foreigner. Another was a letter of resignation. One of these letters would be accepted but the officer had no way of knowing in advance which of these two communications would be accepted.

One such IFS officer who was on deputation to a domestic public sector undertaking, pending his permission to marry an east European woman, took liberties with Rajiv that Venkateswaran did not approve of.

At an annual meeting between the Prime Minister and PSU heads, a big occasion in those days of the state in commanding heights of the economy, this officer gave Rajiv a representation about his impending marriage.

Rajiv took it home and, because the supplicant was an IFS officer, he marked “please discuss” on that representation and sent it to the foreign secretary. Venkateswaran ambled in to the Prime Minister’s presence in his usual style a few days later.

At that meeting, Venkateswaran, who never minced words, told Rajiv that the officer had misused the occasion and that he had no business to give such a representation to the Prime Minister at a meeting of PSU heads.

Then he said something that few else would have said. “Sir, if you had not been married to a foreigner, this man would not have had the temerity to approach you.”

Rajiv, according to my account, went red in the face but did not say anything.

{So Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! Or "Yatha Raja thatha praja!"}

Of course, permission was given to this officer to marry. Sometime later, service rules that governed foreign spouses were considerably liberalised. But the chemistry between Rajiv and Venkateswaran was not the same after this episode.

It is entirely likely that Sonia is still unaware of this incident. In any case there is no evidence that she played any part in his dismissal.

In fact, Natwar Singh writes in his recently published memoir, One Life is not Enough, that “I later learnt that Sonia upbraided him” (Rajiv) for the manner in which the foreign secretary was removed. Rajiv’s reply to her was that “I did not know he (Venkateswaran) was sitting in the front row” at the media conference.

Natwar writes that soon after he was made minister of state for external affairs in October 1986, “I discerned the Prime Minister’s coolness towards his foreign secretary. I also noticed that the foreign secretary was treating the Prime Minister in a somewhat light-hearted manner.… I had once or twice cautioned him to be careful and not rub the PM the wrong way.” :rotfl:

A consummate story-teller, one narrative that stands out is testimony to Venkateswaran’s outstanding qualities as a diplomat. When he was ambassador to Syria from 1975 to 1977, Indira Gandhi sent Venkateswaran as her special envoy to Baghdad.

Saddam Hussein was then the darling of the Third World and the non-aligned movement, but Venkateswaran refused to shake hands with Saddam. “I knew even then that his hands were dripping with blood. Being an Indian gives you the luxury of saying namaste with folded hands….”

Venkateswaran’s public dismissal and humiliation, unprecedented in the history of the Indian Foreign Service, had prompted the IFS to do the unthinkable: to get the Indian Foreign Service Association to call an extraordinary meeting to condemn the Prime Minister and express the total support of the diplomatic service to its leader and head.

When word of the association’s move spread from the wing of South Block which houses the ministry of external affairs to its adjacent portion that is the Prime Minister’s Office and became a wildfire all over Raisina Hill, the seat of government, it was one of the biggest crises that Rajiv had to tackle during his tumultuous tenure as Prime Minister.

Civil servants were attempting to show that they had the spine to stand up to politicians.

All resources available to Rajiv were marshalled to neutralise the collective body of Indian diplomats. Although Natwar does not mention this in his memoir, it was known at that time that he summoned Peter Sinai, an additional secretary in the MEA who was also secretary of the association. Sinai, incidentally, is the son-in-law of Anthony Lancelot Dias, the governor of Bengal from 1971 to 1977.

Natwar had been appointed minister of state for external affairs only three months earlier by Rajiv. He was in Moscow when Venkateswaran — and the entire IFS in reflection — was humiliated on television. Natwar considered the Prime Minister’s insensitivity to his colleagues serious enough to cut short his stay in the Soviet Union and rush back to New Delhi. Venkateswaran was a year senior to Natwar in the IFS.

Sinai did not give in, although he was warned of the “extreme displeasure of the Prime Minister” if the association went ahead with its plans. At that stage, all the Prime Minister’s men got together and marshalled the services of the more resourceful Romesh Bhandari, whose post Venkateswaran had assumed only 10 months earlier.

According to the grapevine at that time, Bhandari was more direct and crude, true to his style and character. Threats of three years in Timbuktu and other similar backwaters were handed out to those who were in the vanguard of the association’s ‘insubordination’ to the head of government.

Cabinet secretary B.G. Deshmukh joined in the arm-twisting and was equally effective. The association nearly gave in and it appeared that the meeting would be called off. But no one in the higher echelons of the IFS had bargained for their more principled and idealistic youths.



{Note the villans that politicized IFS: Rpmesh Bhandari who is Notwar Singh's brother-in-law, BG Deshmukh and others un-named.}

Younger diplomats, all of whom are now in senior positions in South Block and in key missions abroad, threatened their seniors that they would formally requisition a meeting of the association if its office-bearers succumbed to pressure from Bhandari, Deshmukh and a host of other wily men who knew how to move the levers of power on Raisina Hill.

Finally, a compromise was negotiated between the seniors who had much to lose and their rebellious juniors. The meeting would, indeed, take place but it would not condemn the Prime Minister. It was recognised, after all, that the Prime Minister had the full right to choose a foreign secretary in whom he had confidence.

At the same time, the association would place on record Venkateswaran’s eminence and his service to Indian diplomacy. A resolution that was anything but combative was passed, which rightly noted that Venkateswaran’s 36 years of service in the IFS should not have had such a sudden end in such a regrettable manner.

There was no compromise on one point: the hurt that Rajiv had caused and the damage to IFS morale. Venkateswaran left South Block basking in the adulation of his colleagues.

Till his death, Venkateswaran refused to discuss in public the reasons for his dismissal except to say that “life without honour was not worth living at all”. Even as late as September last year when journalists in Bangalore, where he spent his last years, tried to probe the 1987 incident, Venkateswaran’s reaction was that “grave-digging is not a pleasant task. Let this matter rest”.

{ A known bribe taker Rajiv Gandhi, was allowed to humiliate an outstanding officer. But Karma is a female dog. It was Rajiv Gandhi who was honored with slogan' Galli, Galli me .....'. And his name is still mud in the Bofors, Union Carbide and other matters.}




AP Venkateshwaran is more than all this. He is a scholar and a gentleman.
He wrote the book on "Defence Ministry Organization" copies of which were there in IITM library.
He served a great tenure as Ambassador to US in early 80s.

His father is ASP Iyer who among other things wrote "Three men of Destiny" the forerunner of historical novels in modern India. And was a great lawyer in composite Madras High Court.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby svinayak » 25 Sep 2014 03:43

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... ign-policy

India's Foreign Policy
By Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit FROM OUR APRIL 1956 ISSUE


AFTER eight years of independence India's foreign policy still gives rise to grave doubts in the Western mind. The reason for this is the acceptance of old definitions rather than an appreciation of the country's background and its human aspirations. The word "neutrality" as applied to India's foreign policy has little meaning. Like a hundred other oft-repeated words it has become blunted with use, and can be related to India only in the context of her past and present policies. What does neutrality--or, as we prefer to call it, non-alignment--mean and why does India follow this path?

As in dress, there are fashions in political outlook and behavior and the individual who wears last year's model at a gathering is regarded not only as eccentric but something approaching a freak. India, it would seem, has entered the elegant international drawing room in old clothes and is an embarrassing misfit among those already assembled there. Why does she continue to embarrass the leaders of society when they have pointed out to her that she would be far more acceptable if she were fashionably in step with them?

In our assessment of the world situation, we, like other nations, find ourselves confronted by two alternatives. One is the belief that peace can be maintained by building up military might and held in balance by an armaments race. The other is the view that it can be preserved only by peaceful means, that the armaments race endangers its preservation, and that no stone must be left unturned to lessen the tensions that exist in the world. To us it seems logical that the latter is the surer way to safeguard the peace. Our approach to peace might then be called "neutrality" if such a nebulous word can be used to define a policy which since its inception in an independent India has been both active and dynamic. In essence our neutrality is the unjaundiced outlook we choose to apply to all international issues, believing that if we approach a problem with a calm mind our vision will be clearer and the result more fruitful. It is true that in an atomic age of cut-and-dried formulas and decisions backed by the authority of power such a policy has the disadvantage of not fitting neatly into any prescribed formula. It reserves unto itself the right to judge each question as it arises on its merits, but it has the great advantage of being free from prejudice and fear.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 01 Oct 2014 18:50

Now that the three Modi visits to Jap[an, China and US are over we need to sit back and appraise what was achieved.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3566
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Paul » 01 Oct 2014 19:05

Putin is coming in Dec or sometime

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 03 Oct 2014 09:28

ramana wrote:Now that the three Modi visits to Jap[an, China and US are over we need to sit back and appraise what was achieved.



http://www.sify.com/news/at-last-india- ... fcfbh.html

At last, India gets a formidable diplomat!
By RSN Singh
Source : SIFY


The jibes from Modi's detractors about the lukewarm press coverage that he received during his recent visit to the US was unwarranted, rather motivated. Some of these detractors suffer from pathological anti-Modi 'foot-in-the-mouth' disease.

It clearly escaped their good sense that for the first time an American President wrote a 'joint editorial' with the visiting prime minister of India in a leading US daily.

The import of the joint editorial was that the two leaders were to do business as equals, a major departure from the 'patron-client' or 'benefactor-beneficiary' or 'superior-subordinate' relationship.


This was possible because it is impossible to subvert Modi or leverage on him, for Modi has no background of World Bank (primarily a US dominated enterprise) nor he has undeserving or financially ambitious children to be settled in the West.

The evenness of the level of diplomatic discourse between the US and India was manifest in President Obama's decision to have interlocution with Modi on not one but two occasions, and even more by his gesture of making an impromptu visit to accompany his guest at the memorial of Martin Luther King. It was also evident from the body-language of the two leaders.

Few years back, the sight of an American President putting his arms indulgingly round an elderly Indian Prime Minister rocked the confidence of Indians.

President Obama was dealing with an Indian Prime Minister steeped in Indian civilization, possessing fierce but pragmatic nationalism, and character – neither weakened by his station nor by the punishing 'Navratra' fast.

Mr Modi spoke at the UN General Assembly on various issues including the need to alter the very character of our present international system to include G-All and a role for troop contributing nations in UN Peace Keeping Missions in decision making.

The canvas of his UN speech included all regions, i.e. South Asia, West Asia, Africa, Latin America, Asia Pacific and Southeast Asia. He spoke about terrorism, rivalry in space and cyber space. His canvas also included technology, energy security and environment.

He utilized the forum to reach out to Pakistan and reiterated that talks cannot be conducted in the shadow of terror. If the intent was benign, the message was stern.

The fact is that Mr Modi visited US after his visit to Japan and immediately in the wake of hosting the Chinese President Xi Jinping, served as formidable diplomatic leverage.

In the prevailing geopolitical situation, India's weight can decide the scales of US-Japan-South Korea-Vietnam alliance vis-à-vis China-Pakistan-North Korea. To the US, India's strategic stance is also decisive with regard to the geopolitical evolution of Russia. Mr Modi played these strategic leverages deftly and with consummate diplomatic skill.

Mr Modi, unlike most former prime ministers, has not been duplicitous in dealing with Israel. He met the Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN meet. This meeting between prime ministers of the two countries was after a gap of 10 years.

In addition to the perspectives of the two countries on the situation in West Asia, defence cooperation was also on the agenda. Significantly, Mr Modi invited Israel to setup defence industries in India and be part of 'make in India' programme.
It may be mentioned that India and Israel have a very robust relationship and currently bilateral trade stands at approximately dollars six billion. Therefore, Mr Modi has finally demolished the relationship between the two countries in what one Israeli diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid described: "...Israel was always the mistress in the sense that the relations were strong but everything was under the carpet and not public".

One of the biggest achievements of Mr Modi was to emphasize on India's security concerns with regard to Afghanistan. With great candour, Mr Modi during his speech at Council of Foreign Relations said: "I have requested the US to not make the same mistake as was made in Iraq, when American troops were withdrawn too quickly. The withdrawal process in Afghanistan should be very slow".

Fortunately, for India, the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between the US and the new dispensation led by President Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan has been signed. According to the BSA some 10,000 US troops can remain in Afghanistan from 01 January 2015 to end of 2024 'and beyond'.

It may be mentioned that Afghanistan also signed a similar agreement with NATO on September 30, 2014 to allow 4,000 to 5,000 troops to stay in Afghanistan after 2014.

Speaking on the scope of the BSA, President Obama said: "This agreement represents an invitation from the Afghan government to strengthen the relationship we have built over the past 13 years and provides our military service members the necessary legal framework to carry out two critical missions after 2014: targeting the remnants of al-Qaeda and training, advising, and assisting Afghan National Security Forces."

The continued American presence in Afghanistan is of vital security interest to India. A sudden withdrawal by the US and its allies would have created a vacuum to the advantage of Pakistan.

A geopolitical vacuum would have ushered in demonic forces like Al Qaeda and Taliban, to the detriment of India. As a consequence, Kashmir would have witnessed massive impetus to terrorism.

The American presence may also ensure that the shift of epicenter of 'global jihad' is confined to the Iraq – Syria region only. It will also test the commitment of the US in dealing with the jihadi elements nurtured and supported by Pakistan.

The former Afghan National Security Advisor Rangin Dafdar has aptly suggested: "If it's legitimate to attack ISIS in Syria and Iraq even though it's against international law, why is it not right to destroy the sanctuaries and bases of al-Qaida, Taliban and the Haqqani Network in Pakistan without UN permission?"

The same logic can be posed that why cannot India act in a similar manner against the Jihadi machines like LeT in Pakistan?


Probably and one sincerely hopes that the US has realized that Pakistan will continue to be mired in terrorism, violence, and instability. Rather Pakistan has nothing to offer but instability in the region.

Pakistan's instability becomes pernicious to the global community when considered in the backdrop of its nuclear weapons that may be eventually available to state (like Saudi Arabia) and non-state entities like Al Qaeda or even ISIS.

Apart from Afghanistan, the Central Asian Countries and China too have much to worry about this instability being exported to them.

Again, Mr Modi did not mince his words when he said that there was a time in the early 90s, when the US refused to see terrorism being faced by India and labelled it as 'law and order problem'.

The distinction that the Americans made between 'terrorism', 'internal security', and 'law and order' seems to have blurred. The joint-editorial by President Obama and PM Modi vindicates the Indian position, it says: "As global partners, we are committed to enhancing our homeland security by sharing intelligence, through counter-terrorism and law enforcement cooperation...".

The emphasis on homeland security by means of intelligence and physical (security forces) cooperation should not be missed. Homeland security in the Indian context implies 'internal security', which includes 'proxy war' by Pakistan.

Law enforcement cooperation logically should include US cooperating with India to secure Dawood Ibrahim and Hafiz Saeed.

Further the joint editorial also says: "... while we jointly work to maintain freedom of navigation and lawful commerce across the seas...".

This is more than veiled reference to preposterous claims by China in South China Sea, which is vital to Indian economy in respect of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) and energy investments in South China Sea at the behest of littoral countries like Vietnam.

A subverted lobby in India has been exaggerating and fabricating Chinese incursions in India in run-up during Mr Xi Jinping's visit in India and later up to Mr Modi's visit to the US.

In an earlier article, this author had categorically asserted that the day the Prime Minister leaves for the US, the stories about 'incursions' will begin to attenuate.

The purpose being solved, there is no wonder that these stories have died. What is abominable is that the subverted lobby can mislead Indians to such an extent based on 'fabricated photographs of intrusions'.

While leverages to secure national interests is legitimate in diplomacy, statecraft demands that the imperatives imposed by geography, history and ethnicity of neighbours are not ignored. The subverted lobby, which had vested interests in fabricating incursions, got a befitting reply from Mr Modi during his question & answer session at the Foreign Affairs Council.

When asked the loaded and mischievous question, whether India would accept a tribunal to mediate dispute between China and India, Mr Modi said: "I have good personal relations with Mr Xi Jinping and could resolve our differences by bilateral talks, which is going to be soon, we do not need tribunal".

This answer gives insight to the machinations of latest 'Chinese incursion' lobby.

India and the US extended the framework agreement for defence cooperation for a further 10 years. The US will cooperate as knowledge partner for India's planned National Defence University. Mr Modi also said: "I want to welcome US defence companies to invest in India". The emphasis obviously is on 'make in India'.

This follows the government's decisions to raise the FDI in defence sector from 26 to 49 percent. This is a major policy departure from the past, wherein India received most of its defence equipment through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.

The FMS route has been fraught with anxieties and improbables for the buyer, despite dishing out valuable foreign exchange. The FMS route strictly involves 'Cash-n-Carry' and is averse to 'transfer of technology'.

During the last regime, defence equipment worth US $ 10 billion was procured/under-consideration through FMS route. Most of these items like ANTPQ-37 fire founder counter battery artillery radar, C-130J, C-17, and Chinook and Apache helicopters (attack) are not priority items for the armed forces.

The absences of the most critical items, inescapable for our national security are MMRCA and utility helicopters.

The MMRCA deal with France has been stalled for the last two years at the culmination stage. Even as this article is being written a Cheetah helicopter of 60s vintage has crashed near Bareilly.

The procurement of 197 light-utility helicopters was cancelled, when it was about to fructify.

It may be mentioned that the Cheetah and Chetak helicopters are the lifeline for troops in high altitude and Siachen, but they have surpassed the obsolete phase years ago. Which are the quarters responsible for this sabotage?

Isn't it queer that at the very time there was apparently (?) abysmal diplomatic acrimony between the US and India on Khobaragade issue, India signed for acquisition of six more C-130J aircraft.


In run-up to Mr Modi's visit, one media house, which has been spearheading the 'Chinese incursion' lobby, came out with an exclusive issue devoted to India's dire defence needs. :mrgreen:

Indeed, there are! But most patriotic Indians should feel insulted when it is attributed that India is a $100 bn or $200 bn arms market. Our legitimate security concerns and requirements should not be allowed to reduce to 'arms market'. Mr Modi, therefore, has made a tectonic shift by inviting US arms manufacturers to 'make in India'.

The US deserves great respect for many of its accomplishments especially in the field of science and technology through people of diverse nationalities. India, however, in dealing with the US should not forget that the construct of that country is basically rests on the military-industrial complex. Its global strategic agenda is purely guided by the imperatives of the military-industrial complex.

For instance, it would be naïve to think the American war on ISIS has no imperatives of manipulation of global oil prices. Nature has been very bountiful to India, but it is hugely energy deficit country. Its dependence on 80 percent of energy imports is a drag on the economy.

It obviates most well intentioned measures towards reduction of budgetary deficit. Why should this deficit be further burdened by importing items that we can easily do without.

Baby Johnson soap and powder, Lux, Fair & Lovely, Pepsi, potato chips and Iskcon :mrgreen: – the assault by US is from 'cradle to grave'.

We need to introspect what should be imported and what we can do without.


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23951
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 06 Oct 2014 07:25

PM Narendra Modi has several big-ticket summits lined up in November - Indrani Bagchi, ToI
Having blitzed through September with high voltage summits spanning half the world, Prime Minister NarendraModi will embark on a second spree of big ticket summits in November. Except this time, Modi will concentrate on Asia.

From November 12, Modi will be in NayPyi Daw for the Asean-India and East Asia Summits. This summit gets top billing from the Indian establishment because the East Asia process is India's gateway into the Asian security environment. Modi is likely to go the extra mile in Myanmar, given its importance in India's security and economic matrix. Myanmar is not only India's gateway to Southeast Asia, it's critical for managing insurgency in the northeast. In addition, India is in the process of building an economic corridor through Myanmar to Thailand and perhaps beyond. Therefore, questions were raised why the Myanmar leadership was not invited to Modi's swearing-in ceremony like leaders of other neighbouring countries.

From Myanmar, Modi is scheduled to travel to Australia for the G20 summit. The summit in Brisbane this year will be Modi's first meeting with many of the G20 heads of government. Clearly India wants the G20 process to mean more than a mere talking shop. Modi has appointed Suresh Prabhu as Sherpa for G20, which is a significant appointment.

Modi will be the first Indian PM to do a bilateral summit in Australia after Mrs Indira Gandhi. He has scheduled a bilateral summit with Tony Abbott after the G20 meet, making it the first time ever that India and Australia would be doing bilateral summits within the same calendar year, a sign of how important Australia has become in India's priorities.

The third week of November will be reserved for the Saarc summit to be held in Nepal this time. Modi has already done a bilateral visit to Nepal, but Saarc is close to his heart and India is expected to push things along in this sleepy regional organization in line with Modi's neighbourhood focus. The PM is also supposed to travel to Janakpur and Lumbini in Nepal which will add a couple more days to his itinerary.

Chinese president Xi Jinping has also invited Modi as a special invitee to the Beijing APEC summit in mid-November. Modi, said sources, is yet to take a call on this invitation, but it looks difficult. However, Modi might be tempted, given India has been quite keen to get into this economic grouping, which has closed off membership for over a decade.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 09 Oct 2014 20:28

X-Post...
partha wrote:Shri SS Menon - "With China you are dealing with 4000 years of statecraft but with Pakistan you are not sure whether you are dealing with a state".




This is the sort of bokwas that MEA mandarins (Marx-e-Azab practioners) have been imbibing. PRC policy is not 4000 years old. Its reshaped 1850s policy after the many humiliatiions from the Christian West.


More once I have time.


K Mehta
BRFite
Posts: 959
Joined: 13 Aug 2005 02:41
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby K Mehta » 13 Oct 2014 23:11

During PM's US visit in a discussion on times now, one expert (uneven cohen?) was saying everytime India says dont hyphenate us with pak and then the next thing we discuss is pak, also India says dont want international interference in kashmir and then wants US to get pak to stop violence in kashmir. Looks like the P word has become the new K word, with no mention of it during the declaration. The Indian govt has done its homework on foreign policy and how to talk with the US.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Oct 2014 19:53

Giving our foes the advantage

India, curiously, has adopted the view that these Lines are, for all intent and purposes, international borders whose violation New Delhi will not brook.

The unilateral stance by India of the LoC as a settled border, for instance, has resulted in New Delhi rarely bringing up in international councils the disputed nature of western Kashmir and the Northern Areas, inclusive of Gilgit, Hunza, and Baltistan illegally occupied by Pakistan since 1947, thereby reinforcing the Pakistani contention that the only matter remaining to be resolved is the status of Indian Kashmir.

Unquestioningly accepting the Chinese annexation of Tibet and the forcible assimilation of the Tibetan people by supporting the myth of an ‘autonomous region of Tibet’ as integral to the Chinese whole has likewise bolstered the Chinese position that peace will come when Arunachal Pradesh regarded by it as only another part of Tibet — ‘southern Tibet’ — is ceded to Beijing. India has thus lost ground politically and legally vis-à-vis both Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Chinese-occupied Tibet.

Neither Pakistan nor China has made the mistake India has, and continually contest the LoC and LAC with armed intrusions, artillery duels, and indiscriminate firings, to highlight the disputed nature of these borders and to ensure their respective territorial claims are active, for fear that not doing so may, in time, accord the status quo sanctity which New Delhi desires.

Thus, frequent military eruptions on the LoC and LAC and, hence, a series of never-ending crises on the borders with Pakistan and China, are preordained with tensions being stoked by sensation-seeking 24/7 electronic media and print media, both apparently as ignorant of the meaning of CFL in international law as the ministry of external affairs (MEA).

At the root of India’s problems with the LoC and LAC is the absence in the Indian political leadership, the Indian government, and especially the MEA, of what the great theorist of geopolitics Halford Mackinder called, “the map-reading habit of mind”. The importance of expanding and safeguarding sovereign territory on land and sea is scarcely understood.

The spatial imperatives of strategy and foreign and military policy, when not reduced to military-wise nonsensical axioms, such as “not an inch of territory will be lost”, are treated as matters of political expediency.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5245
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 15 Oct 2014 20:01

Ramana: Do expound on your differing view from SS Menon on China's structures not to be looked at as a continuation of the state structures of the Chinese Empire. There is a serious body of argument that supports the view of SS Menon that under the facade of a CPC, the state controlled capitalism, along with a modernized hierarchical struturee of governance (they have 27 or so such levels) is in effect at its core a continuation of the bureaucratic control that was exercised the erstwhile Chines empires. In fact if anything, Mao was an aberration in this "long term" picture.

But, will be interested in knowing your perspective. Thanks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 21 Oct 2014 19:58

There is a seminar in Delhi with lot of stalwarts talking on strategy etc.

Twitter accounts of ORF and Tufail Ahmed have running commentary on the proceedings.

Some one please collect and storify them.

Thanks in appreciation,
ramana

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 21 Oct 2014 20:06

https://www.securityconference.de/news/ ... i-updated/

On October 21 and 22, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) will host its next Core Group Meeting in New Delhi in partnership with the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), New Delhi. The meeting is co-hosted by the Chairman of the MSC, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, and the Director of the ORF, Sunjoy Joshi.


A new approach to global security: MSC meets in New Delhi [updated]



Around 70 senior decision-makers from politics, business, media and civil society from India, as well as the Euro-Atlantic, Asian and the Middle East region will come together to discuss key issues of international security policy. The conference is actively supported by the Indian government as well as by the German Ambassador to India Michael Steiner.

High-ranking participants
The following prominent speakers and participants are expected at the MSC Core Group Meeting in New Delhi:
•José Antonio Meade Kuribreña, Foreign Minister of Mexico
•Umer Daudzai, Minister of the Interior of Afghanistan
•Joseph M. Cohen, National Security Advisor of Israel
•Markus Ederer, Deputy Foreign Minister of Germany
•Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia
•Shashi Tharoor, Chairman of the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs
•Norbert Röttgen, Chairman of the German Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee
•Hans-Peter Bartels, Chairman of the German Bundestag’s Defence Committee
•Cem Özdemir, Federal Chairman, Alliance 90/The Greens and Member of the German Bundestag
•Anvar Azimov, Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry
•John McLaughlin, former Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
•Robert Blackwill, former U.S. Ambassador to India and former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor
•Jane Harman, Director and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars



The host nation will be represented among others by:
•Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor
•Sujatha Singh, Foreign Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs
•Arvind Gupta, Deputy National Security Advisor
•Navtej Sarna, Secretary (West) of the Ministry of External Affairs
•Ananth Guruswamy, Director of Amnesty International India



Focus on regional and global security
The conference will be opened by National Security Advisor Ajit Kumar Doval with a keynote speech on Indian foreign and security policy and will focus on global and regional security challenges such as the conflicts in the Middle East and the situation in Afghanistan after the 2014 NATO withdrawal. Questions of maritime security in the Indo-Pacific, cyber security, Euro-Atlantic and Asian regional security architectures as well as global governance and the role of emerging powers will also be discussed.

Information for media representatives
Media representatives are cordially invited to follow the opening keynote speech by National Security Advisor Ajit Kumar Doval and the subsequent plenary session on “Emerging Powers and Global Governance”, taking place on October 21 from 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. This part of the conference will be open to the public. We also invite you to join us for an informal networking lunch on October 21 from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m., which creates an opportunity for open exchange and discussions with conference participants.

You are also welcome to continue following the conference on the afternoon of October 21 and on October 22 in our listening room. But please take note that these sessions will be held under Chatham House Rule, encouraging lively and open discussions among decision-makers present. Thus, neither the identity nor the affiliation of speakers or discussants may be revealed. Furthermore, we are happy to offer interview opportunities with selected participants during the conference.

About the MSC Core Group Meetings
Since 2009, the MSC has been holding Core Group Meetings in key capitals around the world. The first five Core Group Meetings took place in Beijing, Doha, Moscow, and twice in Washington, D.C. These meetings are intended to give a small, exclusive group of high-ranking participants an opportunity to discuss key issues of international security policy in an intimate setting. The intention is for ideas generated by the Core Group Meeting to contribute to the further development of the Munich Security Conference.

Contact
Oliver Joachim Rolofs
Press Spokesperson and Head of Communications
Munich Security Conference

Phone:+49-89-37979 4920
Mob: +49-172-512 0159
Mob: +91-96-50 81 02 67
E-mail: press@securityconference.de

or

Vidyadharan M P
Additional Director, Communications
Observer Research Foundation (ORF)

Phone: 99 58 93 33 37
E-Mail: vidyadharan@orfonline.org


RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby RajeshA » 21 Oct 2014 21:02

ramana wrote:https://www.securityconference.de/news//article/a-new-approach-to-global-security-msc-meets-in-new-delhi-updated/

High-ranking participants
The following prominent speakers and participants are expected at the MSC Core Group Meeting in New Delhi:
•José Antonio Meade Kuribreña, Foreign Minister of Mexico
•Umer Daudzai, Minister of the Interior of Afghanistan
•Joseph M. Cohen, National Security Advisor of Israel
•Markus Ederer, Deputy Foreign Minister of Germany
•Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister of Australia
•Shashi Tharoor, Chairman of the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs
•Norbert Röttgen, Chairman of the German Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee
•Hans-Peter Bartels, Chairman of the German Bundestag’s Defence Committee
•Cem Özdemir, Federal Chairman, Alliance 90/The Greens and Member of the German Bundestag
•Anvar Azimov, Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry
•John McLaughlin, former Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
•Robert Blackwill, former U.S. Ambassador to India and former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor
•Jane Harman, Director and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars


Quite a few people from Germany!

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7038
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby JE Menon » 21 Oct 2014 22:54

^^It's a German operation... "Munich Security Conference" - held in different places every year I think. Doval was very good this morning. Saw a bit of it live on NDTV. He was colloquial, straight-forward, no bullshite. Someone will hopefully put up the whole thing on youtube.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21160
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Prem » 22 Oct 2014 01:55

http://www.firstpost.com/world/nsa-ajit ... 67211.html
NSA Ajit Doval calls for collective global convergence against terrorism

New Delhi: India's National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, in his first public interaction, called Tuesday for a collective global convergence on terrorism and said that a UN convention on terrorism could not be formulated for the past 13 years as Pakistan had objected to “freedom fighters” being termed terrorists.Addressing the Munich Security Conference meet here, Doval also said that India considers strong democracy as the best tool to foster security both within the country and in the region. Commenting on the changing nature of conflicts powered by economics and regional interests, he said that the threat of terrorism constituted only 40 percent of the danger and what is important is the response. “There is need for convergence, automated systems and institutionalized mechanism and meaningful partnership” to combat the threat of terrorism, he said. He said that post the 9/11 attacks when the war on terror was launched, terrorism has become “much more intense and expanded, engulfed new areas, and the type of capability it has acquired has become mind boggling”, and India is deeply concerned about terrorism and its manifestations. He said in the past 13 years while individual countries have honed their independent anti-terror mechanisms and networks, at the international level countries have failed to jointly act against terror, except to hold conferences.Since 2001 there had been an idea to have a comprehensive UN convention on terrorism but the failure to have one due to “one reason; people could not define terrorism”, he said, adding that at the Kuala Lumpur conference then it was almost accepted, but for one point. "Some country wanted, Pakistan wanted that, the causative factor, freedom fighters, should not be treated as terrorists. He said because of Pakistan’s objection the adoption of the UN convention on terrorism was held back. He called for a UN convention on terrorism, adding, “And should something happen, there should be a collective response, a systemic convergence. Speaking of cyber terrorism, he suggested that the conventional method of extradition and interrogation with regard to cyber terrorists was a “very cumbersome process”. Since cyber crime is a fast moving process it needs to be responded to in 24 hours. On maritime security, he said that it is imperative to have free lanes. Doval said the Indian Ocean is an area of peace and development and the world has to “be extremely vigilant to see that balances are not disrupted” and wherever there are conflicts global agreements should determine the solution.
On the new Narendra Modi government’s approach to security, Doval said the government does not view it as a problem related to the armed forces or police forces but in a much broader way. “For both internal and external (security), we think that democracy is one of the most powerful tools in dealing with security problems. And if we have democracy, a strong democracy in the country and similar in the region that would be one of very surest symbols of India’s security,” he said, and referred to Modi’s invite to the neighbourhood leaders. He said the elections were also indicative of how democracy can bring change of regime in a peaceful and orderly manner.
On the government’s neighbourhood policy, he said the government’s aim is for development of the region, and to see “whether the fruits of India’s growth and development would have a spillover effect” and also to assure neighbours that India’s growth “is not a threat or to undermine statehood but to enrich and provide new opportunities”. Doval said India wants to resolve any conflict through talks and has made a beginning in the direction. “But at the same time India would like to have an effective deterrence capability that is credible, that is seen and known by people; and that India cannot be taken for granted, and that its legitimate rights cannot be trampled upon, and that it becomes an instrument for stability in the region rather than a cause for conflict,” he said. To a question on China, Doval said India considers “China as a very important neighbour” and a country with which India has had good relations for many centuries, barring “some bad experience in 1962 and the water dispute”. He said both sides will find a solution to their bilateral problems through talks and both have found a “lot of space in economic cooperation” despite many problems that are common. In a warning, he added “but while we want every opportunity to develop relations to the best extent, our territorial interests and sovereignty are totally inalienable.”

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby RoyG » 22 Oct 2014 07:51

ramana wrote:X-Post...
partha wrote:Shri SS Menon - "With China you are dealing with 4000 years of statecraft but with Pakistan you are not sure whether you are dealing with a state".




This is the sort of bokwas that MEA mandarins (Marx-e-Azab practioners) have been imbibing. PRC policy is not 4000 years old. Its reshaped 1850s policy after the many humiliatiions from the Christian West.


More once I have time.


Thank you Jebus that SS Menon is out. This guy has no vision. Just serve the queen.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23951
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 22 Oct 2014 11:45

I am concerned at Amnesty International being part of the Munich Conference.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3566
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Paul » 22 Oct 2014 22:01

SS Menon superseded no less than 16 IFS officers to become the foreign secretary. Not sure what backing he had to warrant such support.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20739
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2014 18:16

Japan caves in ? This should be awarning to Indian mandarins of the MEA and Def. establishment in dealign with China.We have to give "No Quarter" to the Chinese whatsoever whether on the brioder or across the table.India has many unused quivers in its arsenal,which have never been used,esp. the two "T" factors,Tibet and Taiwan.Japan and Vietnam are towp others,the Vietnamese especially who have defeated the French,the Americans and the Chinese have taught the world a singular lesson in warfare and statecraft.They got the better of the Nixon-Kissinger combine and the faecal parasites of Zhognanhai too.

The Japanese have yet to reinvent their samurai spirit as they are behoilden to the US for their security and are in truth a semi-vassal state,with no full sovereignty or independence of action.They still need the US armed forces on their soil,just like the SoKos.The silly Japanese should instead of lusting after a meeting wiht the head Chinaman,should instead send a delagation of high officials all over Asia/AEAN and Shinzo Abe visit these nations ,esp. Vietnam,Taiwan,the Phillipines,Indonesia,Malaysia,etc.,who have maritime disputes with China in the "Indo-China Sea" and forge deeper security ties.Japan throwing in the towel is the price you pay for not being a N-weapons state! Why India has to accelerate N-warhead production asap and increase the number of warheads and delivery systems in the hundreds. If China possesses 500-1000 warheads,then India in no way can be inferior as she also has to deal with N-Pak,China's N-proxy.Why we need a LR strat. bomber for the IAF until we have enough SSBNs in thw water with 5000km+ ICBMs.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/japan-ca ... d-dispute/
Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute

To secure a meeting with Xi, Japanese PM Abe caved to China’s long-standing demand on the East China Sea dispute.
By Zachary Keck
October 18, 2014

In order to secure a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe agreed to a significant concession in Tokyo’s ongoing dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands, according to Japanese media outlets.

As Shannon noted earlier today on China Power, Japanese officials now expect there to be a brief meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe during next month’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Beijing. The meeting would be the first between the two heads of state since they took their current positions. It comes after a prolonged Japanese charm offensive towards China, which resulted in extensive behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at securing a heads of state meeting at APEC.

The meeting, which Japanese officials acknowledged would be more symbolic than substantive, did not come cheaply for Japan. Indeed, if Japanese media reports are accurate, Tokyo appears to have caved on the major issue that prevented a heads-of-state meeting to date.

On Thursday, Mainichi reported that Japan made a three-prong proposal to China in order to secure the meeting between the two heads of states next month. According to the report, which cited “Japanese government sources,” Japan proposed that during his meeting with Xi, Abe would first reassert that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of Japanese territory, but then “acknowledge that China has a case as well” to the islands. He would then propose that China and Japan seek to settle the issue through mutual dialogue over time. None of this would be included in a joint statement or any other documents officially released after the summit meeting.

Still, if the report is accurate, Abe’s acknowledgement that a territorial dispute exists and proposal to settle the issue through mutual dialogue represent huge concessions to long-standing Chinese demands.

The Japanese government has always refused to acknowledge that a territorial dispute even exists with China over the Senkaku Islands, which Beijing refers to as the Diaoyu Islands. “There exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands,” Japan has said on numerous occasions.

China’s main precondition for agreeing to a heads of state meeting between President Xi and Prime Minister Abe has long been Japan’s acknowledgement that the territorial dispute exists. As Kyodo reported in June 2013, “Even after the change of government last December with the inauguration of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, China has continued to call for Japan to acknowledge that a territorial dispute exists as a precondition for holding a summit.” That same report noted that Japan had refused to do this, and thus that a leadership summit appeared unlikely for the foreseeable future.

The two sides also publicly fought over the issue during the UN General Assembly meeting in September of last year. First, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a think tank speech before the UNGA opened that China was willing to reopen dialogue with Japan, but first “Japan needs to recognize that there is such a dispute. The whole world knows that there is a dispute.”

Prime Minister Abe appeared to respond to Wang in a press conference following his appearance at the UN summit. “Senkaku is an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law, and the islands are under the valid control of Japan,” Abe said at the press conference. While Tokyo would not escalate the situation and wanted to open dialogue with China to avoid an armed conflict, Abe insisted that “Japan would not make a concession on our territorial sovereignty.”

Some in China are already taking the concession as a sign of Japanese weakness. Specifically, the Global Times quoted Yang Bojiang, director of Japanese studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, as saying: “Abe is under economic pressure to resume talks with China and advance the bilateral relationship, so he has to show the world his willingness to talk.”

vipins
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 17:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vipins » 25 Oct 2014 14:04

IT minister hopes to use cultural connect to boost ties with South Korea
If IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad visited South Korea last week to ensure that electronic companies set up manufacturing units in India, he returned with much more. He learnt that South Korea had 50 lakh people out of its 5 crore population today, who traced their ancestry back to King Kim Suro and his Queen Huh Hwang-ok, an Indian princess from Ayodhya.

The minister hopes to use this cultural connect to boost ties with South Korea and ask Prime Minister Narendra Modi to upgrade the memorial of the Queen Huh at Ayodhya that was built in 2001, at the initiation of the Karak Clan Society, involved in preserving the cultural heritage of the Karak kingdom. "Electronic manufacturing in India with Korean cooperation will be propelled through cultural heritage symbolised by the princess from Ayodhya Suriratna who became Queen Huh," Prasad told TOI. He is busy reading "The Legend of Ayodhya Princess in Korea," a novel by N Parthasarathi, who served as Indian ambassador in Seoul between 2005 and 2008.

Prasad was told by the Indian envoy to Seoul Vishnu Prakash when former PM Manmohan Singh visited South Korea in 2012 to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, his wife Gursharan Kaur had asked him how many Indians lived Korea and Prakash had said about seven to eight thousand. But Korean President Lee Myung-Bak's wife, Kim Yoon-ok had corrected him by saying he was ill-informed when the number was 50 lakh and she (Kim Yoon-ok) herself was one of them. The President's wife was referring to Koreans who trace their root to Ayodhya.

Princess Suriratna is believed to have travelled for three months by sea, to a divine beckon, to marry King Kim Suro in 48 AD, who founded the Karak kingdom in 42 AD, with its capital at Gimhae city. 48 AD marked the start of the Karak clan.

At present six million Koreans with surnames Kim and Huh from Gimhae and Lee from Incheon trace their ancestry to this royal couple. Queen Huh's tomb has pagoda in front, built with stones which she is believed to have brought from Ayodhya.

Awed by the number of Koreans who connect so closely with India even today and specially to Ayodhya, Prasad decided to write to the PM to upgrade the existing memorial to an elegant Korean-style structure that could attract about 1 lakh Korean tourists a year, including Buddhists, for whom it is a pilgrimage.

For the BJP leader, the prominence of Ayodhya on India's tourist map also ensures bringing in the Hindutva flavour. Prasad feels, the upgradation of the memorial will not only improve bilateral ties with South Korea but will also put Ayodhya prominently on the tourist map for Indians and foreign visitors and that could help improve infrastructure and socio-economic conditions of locals.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22553
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby chetak » 25 Oct 2014 14:28

Paul wrote:SS Menon superseded no less than 16 IFS officers to become the foreign secretary. Not sure what backing he had to warrant such support.


Termite mafia is suggested. The termite mafia seems inordinately concentrated in one particular southern state from evidence available, if you evaluate and scrutinize a few past generations of the dynasty.

dinesh_kimar
BRFite
Posts: 463
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby dinesh_kimar » 25 Oct 2014 14:59

Paul wrote:SS Menon superseded no less than 16 IFS officers to become the foreign secretary. Not sure what backing he had to warrant such support.


^ He was chosen by Manmohan in 2006, who asserted his right to have his own man for this important post,on the grounds of merit rather than seniority. One of the reasons was his expertise and mastery would hold the country in good stead while handling sensitive issues with China and Pakistan.3rd Menon from same family (incl. grandfather and uncle) to hold the post. Public School Education, Brilliant career, etc.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Austin » 25 Oct 2014 15:17


SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23951
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 30 Dec 2014 09:34

The following is a review of a book written by Shri TP Sreenivasan. I post this here for the information presented.
Applied Diplomacy: A Primer for aspiring diplomats - The Hindu

Govindan Nair

“Imagine a boy, born in a village with no electricity, whose playgrounds were paddy fields … whose toys were made out of coconut leaves and used bicycle tyres”; now picture him as ‘ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary’ authorised to speak at the most exalted global forums on behalf of a billion countrymen, working in offices near some of the most “glamorous places on the political, cultural and tourist maps of the world”. Ambassador Sreenivasan attributes his transformation from village lad to high-flying globetrotter to his father’s perspicacity in visualising the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) as the vehicle with which to “conquer the world”.

The book under review is a paean to diplomatic service. Depicting himself as “an evangelist of the Foreign Service”, Sreenivasan agonises at the low priority that the IFS commands among youthful job-seekers today. Recalling the exhilaration of addressing world gatherings on behalf of his country, negotiating momentous international agreements and sitting across a table from statesmen and heads of state, he relives the charms and challenges of diplomatic life hoping to influence the career choice of youngsters seeking adventure and professional fulfilment. He is assisted by his young protégé, Divya Iyer, who has ingeniously put together a selection of his writings and speeches in a curious arrangement based on mythological themes.

Iyer organises the articles in seven chapters aligned to the sapta-chiranjeevi — seven immortal beings of the Hindu pantheon — each symbolising an aspect of diplomacy or of Sreenivasan’s life. Iyer provides a brief and imaginative — if fanciful — introduction to each chapter: Hanuman, described in Valmiki Ramayana as the ideal emissary, is the epitome of the Foreign Service diplomat; Vibheeshana, the noble half-bother at odds with the malevolent Ravana, signifies India in its fraught neighbourhood; Aswatthama, cursed for his unethical conduct to roam unloved till eternity, represents the United States; Kripacharya, the wise and impartial guru, embodies the United Nations; Vyasa, the master story-teller, is, of course, Sreenivasan himself.

Given the benefit of an exciting and varied life, Sreenivasan has much to share, and the fact that he is an able raconteur makes this collection of his outpourings — for the most part — compelling and readable. As he has already penned an autobiography, the present volume comprises wide-ranging articles written for journals and papers, and speeches delivered at gatherings extending from schools to academic and cultural institutions over the past decade.

Given the diverse audiences at which they were targeted, the quality and significance of the offerings are uneven, but the acuity of Sreenivasan’s diplomatic insight, his easy charm and quiet sense of humour infuse the pages.

Tracing the course of Indian diplomacy, Sreenivasan refutes the contention that our foreign policy has been more reactive than proactive. He argues that huge disruptive events — like the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the 9/11 attacks — put to naught the most assiduous long-term strategic planning, thereby underscoring the importance of prompt and thoughtful response. India has not only been consistent in its foreign policy, he says, but also dynamic.

He disagrees with averments for a new generation of non-alignment or strategic autonomy, insisting instead on the need for “selective alignments on the basis of mutual benefit … across geographical and ideological divides”.

Foreseeing in 2013, a change of government, Sreenivasan predicted that after the initial euphoria there would likely be continuity rather than change in India’s foreign policy. Even towards China he did not expect greater assertiveness. He contends that India has been not only tolerant but benevolent to its neighbours and has dealt magnanimously with them “at considerable cost to itself, with a policy of constructive engagement at all times and non-interference in their internal affairs”. While all may not concur with this assessment, the following statement will raise hackles: “The more concessions we give, the more will be asked for; the more we deny, the more blackmailing will be resorted to”. With regard to our Pakistan policy, he believes that it should be based strictly on reciprocity. The “peace industry” in India, he holds, has done more damage than good to India-Pakistan relations.

Having served at ambassadorial level in three cities headquartering United Nations agencies, Sreenivasan’s knowledge of the organisation is exemplary. Emphasising the continuing relevance of the UN, he argues for fundamental changes that would reflect the realities of the present century. He endorses India’s aspiration for a permanent seat in the Security Council, but feels that this would be exceedingly hard to attain, and that India should not seem desperate to join the ‘high table’ nor predicate bilateral ties on this quest. Discussing the nuances of the Indo-U.S. negotiations for a nuclear deal, he concludes that actual trade may, arguably, never materialise.
While supporting nuclear disarmament in the long term, following the Fukushima disaster — which, he avers, holds key lessons for all nuclear plants including the one at Kudankulam — he turned into a nuclear sceptic appealing for progressive reduction of dependence on nuclear energy.

Returning to his roots in Kerala with a wealth of experience from 35 years in the diplomatic service, which included being ignominiously expelled from Fiji and brutally attacked in Kenya, Sreenivasan has been a prodigious writer and indefatigable speaker. The last two chapters deal with eclectic subjects; notably, an ironic piece on the ‘Malayalee mindset’, whence he pleads for “social graces such as courtesy, discipline and punctuality, social responsibility and industry” to transform Keralan society.

Divya Iyer, who Sreenivasan describes as his “spiritual daughter”, presents Applied Democracy as ‘guru-dakshina’ to her mentor on his 70th birthday. T.P.Sreenivasan’s admirers will undoubtedly unearth gems in this book which, more significantly, will be a useful primer for aspiring and fledgling diplomats who will be enriched by its insights into foreign policy and international relations, and by his unflagging devotion to his work.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20739
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 30 Dec 2014 10:44

Both India and China need no Western mouthpiece or ars*hole to act as a broker .Our two civilisations span thousands of years and we have any number of ancients well versed in the art of statecraft from Chanakya to Sun Tzu,Yoritomo Tashi in Japan,etc.,long before Machiavelli or Dr Kissinger! In more recent times we've had Krishna Menon ,the Chinese Chou En Lai,the Russians Dobrynin and Gromyko just to mention a few. The late much lamented J.N.Dixit was a brilliant exponent of realpolitik especially during his stint as the "viceroy" of Sri Lanka .The Lankans still talk about his singlemindedness in pursuing India's interests. Dixit's books are still worth re-reading as they give us a rare glimpse into the security of our neighbourhood and its challenges from our mortal enemies Paka and China.

The best diplomats to deal with China are the Indian armed forces.A massive boost in modernizing,strengthening and deploying them to deter China in the Himalayas and the IOR,with a forward presence in the Indo-China Sea is the only language that China understands.The Chines revel in the art of deception especially during talks/official visits.see how ABV was treated when he was FM on a visit to Beijing-they invaded Vietnam during his visit and when X1 Gins came-a-visiting,sending his cockroaches across our Himalayan borders. Keep China guessing while beefing up our strike capability.

vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1108
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vijaykarthik » 30 Dec 2014 12:01

^^ Absolutely agree with that view. JN Dixit's book is an excellent read at any given point of time.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13961
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 07 Jan 2015 01:25

Arun Shourie on Geopolitics - On China mostly

Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Tuvaluan » 07 Jan 2015 02:30

Emphasising the continuing relevance of the UN, he argues for fundamental changes that would reflect the realities of the present century. He endorses India’s aspiration for a permanent seat in the Security Council, but feels that this would be exceedingly hard to attain


Elementary logic fail. Apparently, India should waste a lot of time and money on the worthless UN, so that the babus and their extended family can live the good life, else what the *** kind of logic is the above from this alleged master diplomat? The obvious fact that the UN is meant for powerplay by the UNSC is apparently lost on these #$&%^$#ing geniuses in the MEA.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby sivab » 28 Jan 2015 22:28

Devirupa Mitra @DevirupaM · 31m 31 minutes ago

#JUSTIN: Foreign secretary Sujatha Singh has apparently resigned,clearing decks for appointmnt of S Jaishankar, who was to retire on Jan 31.


Hindustan Times @htTweets · 44m 44 minutes ago

#Breaking Indian ambassador to US S Jaishankar to be next foreign secretary

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3796
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 28 Jan 2015 22:42

^^ that tweet is confusing, who is retiring on Jan 31? If Sujatha Singh is, then why resign just a few days ahead?

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4462
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby putnanja » 28 Jan 2015 22:47

Sujatha Singh's tenure was terminated. Saw this link on twitter

It clearly says this:

The appointments committee of cabinet has approved the following:

1. Curtailment of tenure of Ms Sujatha Singh as Foreign Sec with immediate effect
2. Appointment of Dr S Jaishankar as Foreign Sec ...


What was the need for removing Sujatha singh so unceremoniously? Leaves a bad taste

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17007
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Rahul M » 28 Jan 2015 22:56

if jaishankar retires on 31st, he has to assume charge before that for continuity. hence sujatha singh has to retire beforehand. same procedure evoked in case of last 2 secretary(R)'s, for example. if newspaper reports are to be believed.

this is not unceremonious, simply officialese.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17007
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Rahul M » 28 Jan 2015 23:04

Austin wrote:The India Myth

subscriber only.

putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4462
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby putnanja » 28 Jan 2015 23:11

Rahul M wrote:if jaishankar retires on 31st, he has to assume charge before that for continuity. hence sujatha singh has to retire beforehand. same procedure evoked in case of last 2 secretary(R)'s, for example. if newspaper reports are to be believed.

this is not unceremonious, simply officialese.


No, as per many articles on the web (Zee news), Sujatha Singh was supposed to retire in August, and so was Jaishankar.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby schinnas » 28 Jan 2015 23:39

Rahul M wrote:if jaishankar retires on 31st, he has to assume charge before that for continuity. hence sujatha singh has to retire beforehand. same procedure evoked in case of last 2 secretary(R)'s, for example. if newspaper reports are to be believed.

this is not unceremonious, simply officialese.


I find it hard to believe. It looks like GoI was waiting until Ombaba trip was over to make this change. Sujatha Singh could have very well been asked to resign on sent out on another posting (which would have forced her to resign). This is public sacking - clean and simple. One wonders why? Was she incompetent or loyal to Madam who appointed her in the first place. Probably we will get to know more in the next several days..

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17007
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Rahul M » 29 Jan 2015 00:00

even so, removing someone as FS doesn't mean she has been removed from service, just from that post. it's a demotion surely, given that jaishankar was supposed to be retiring in dec 2016.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54446
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 29 Jan 2015 00:21

When Sujatha Singh was appointed the speculation was Jaishankar would be appointed as he is more able. However SS was appointed citing seniority at time of joining. When Modi became PM he clearly wanted Jaishankar in PMO as FP coordinator. So BO visit was allowed to complete and SS tenure curtailed. Very clearly stated by the ACC press release.

Jaishankar before his current post was Envoy to Beijing and is a reputed China hand.

BTW don't cry for her. Her father is TV Rajeshwar, former IB director, former Governor of UP and Padma Vibhushan and loyal family insider from Andhra Pradesh. As an aside he made 'secular' remarks while Governor of UP at BHU or some such place which caused many people heart burn.


Modi is very decisive. Only fools mistake him.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asbchakri, mukkan, pravula and 19 guests