India-US Relations : News and Discussion

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 20 Feb 2015 08:42

I will take this to the Gandhi thread, but let me point out one "flaw" with Gandhi's belief system:

The "flaw" is visible when viewed through a layer cake like deconstruction of "philosophy" by western academics, where a philosophy is divided into the following branches:

Metaphysics(axioms, given) --> Epistemology (logic, combination rules) --> Ethics (individual behavior, action, reaction to a given situation) --> politics ( relationship between individual and the society and vice versa).

Non-Violence is an ethical decision, i.e. it is an "action" or a "reaction" to some external situation. That external situation has to be judged using some epistemological system applied to a set of "core beliefs" i.e. givens. You cannot make the SAME ethical decision under all situation and circumstances. It just does not make sense.

So Gandhi's "philosophical flaw" is to take an "action or a choice" and put it at the root of a philosophy as an "absolute given". i.e. Gandhian metaphysics is that "violence from myself is impossible under any situation".

Here is the Gandhian philosophical layer-cake:

Metaphysics (non violence is the ONLY action) --> Epistemology ( all options, including suicide are open to satisfy the given) --> ethics (no option here) --> politics ( no option here, if faced with a violent situation submit).

The layer-cake deconstruction also exposes a similar flaw case of absolutists and exclusivist faiths, for example:

Metaphysics (Allah is the only God and Muhammed the only prophet and his actions the ONLY action) --> Epistemology (any problem shall be solved as per the book and any solution will be found in the book) --> ethics (the book says kill the kaffirs, so lets kill them kaffirs) --> politics (the book says only muslim rule should be present where muslims rule, so lets demand sharia).

Once you take an "action" as an absolute, you become a fundamentalist. Gandhian philosophy is a masochist fundamentalists while absolutists and exclusivists are sadistic fundamentalist. They are made for each other.

member_26011 · Post by **member_26011** » 20 Feb 2015 09:38

If I had to pick, I'd put satyagraha over ahimsa and "satyameva jayate" over satyagraha. IMHO, the belief that truth alone will ultimately prevail is our core that stands on its own. It gives us both the end and the necessary flexibility of means, all in one go.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 20 Feb 2015 10:02

I dont have much knowledge of Indic systems other than western paraphrasing and some cursory self examination. But one theme that keeps repeating is the need to "upholding Dharma".

"Upholding Dharma" looks like an action, i.e. an ethical outcome of a belief system and it seems to be presented as so. It looks like an absolute, but it is not. "Upholding Dharma" is the epistemological tool. What is Dharma is given by the Metaphysics and the action you need to take to uphold it is the ethical behavior that Indic beliefs expect you to have.

BTW: I am not trying to fit in Indic belief system into western academic view of "philosophy", it just seem two parallel systems that have a reasonable correspondence.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 20 Feb 2015 10:35

If satyameva jayate is the focus..what is satya? Does aswatthama is dead fit in or not? Better to defend dharma than muddle along like gandhi did.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 20 Feb 2015 10:43

chand.bhardwaj wrote:If I had to pick, I'd put satyagraha over ahimsa and "satyameva jayate" over satyagraha. IMHO, the belief that truth alone will ultimately prevail is our core that stands on its own. It gives us both the end and the necessary flexibility of means, all in one go.

Once you are looking for "flexibility" then any means can be justified. SDOTUS pretzel shape is one example.

Bottom line is that there can be no compromise. Otherwise means become the end.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 20 Feb 2015 11:37

There is usually flexibility in a choice of actions, that are usually consistent with your core beliefs. Core beliefs are usually fixed.

However, when your core beliefs themselves mandate action on your part, then you have no choice but to act a certain way whether you like it or not. That is when your "beliefs" become fundamentalism.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 20 Feb 2015 16:25

Considering that it was the Europeans, and Araps before Europeans, who invaded India, the message of non-violence of Gandhi must be primarily towards invaders.

One can't be invading a country and then start talking about non-violence. This is a basic condition and must not be overlooked regardless of twisting it just so as to make Hindus feel guilty as per Gandhi's standards. The Europeans and Arabs never seem to feel guilty per Gandhi's standards.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 20 Feb 2015 16:49

vishvak wrote:Considering that it was the Europeans, and Araps before Europeans, who invaded India, the message of non-violence of Gandhi must be primarily towards invaders.

One can't be invading a country and then start talking about non-violence. This is a basic condition and must not be overlooked regardless of twisting it just so as to make Hindus feel guilty as per Gandhi's standards. The Europeans and Arabs never seem to feel guilty per Gandhi's standards.

Just one short post since this is OT:
That is the crux of the matter: Gandhi always preached ahimsa to the victim and not to the aggressor.

Ahimsa is parmo-dharma I.e. highest dharma according to Hindhuism. It is supposed to be higher than truth. But, all Hindhu Gods and Goddesses carry weapons. How to reconcile weapons with Ahimsa? Well, killing the killers is also Ahimsa because it saves many peoples lives. Weapons provide deterrant which stops wars.

Gandhi's formulation of Ahimsa actually ended up killing many Bhaarathiyas during colonial rule and partitions. Gandhi's philosophy is closer buddhism and jainism than Hindhuism.

Gandhi conflated Ahimsa and Sathya (truth) by his formulation of sathya-agraha.

Gandhi was just following the line of people like Gokhale and Ranade when he talked about Ahimsa.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 20 Feb 2015 17:45

johneeG wrote: killing the killers is also Ahimsa

If you dont know certain things, don't state them to make it obvious

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 20 Feb 2015 18:11

symontk wrote:
johneeG wrote: killing the killers is also Ahimsa
If you dont know certain things, don't state them to make it obvious

a) if you don't know something, then it is better to expose the ignorance and get educated rather than remain ignorant.
b) yes, killing the killers is non violence because it stops the violence. Absolute non violence is impossible in this world. So, the non violence means saving more lives and violence means hurting more lives. Gandhi's non-violence provided cover for colonial british.

Tuvaluan · Post by **Tuvaluan** » 20 Feb 2015 18:44

Gandhi's non violence was good strategy given the enemy who pretended to be civilizationally superior and yet operated using brute force and extreme violence and even genocide via famine etc.

Gandhi understood that any forceful response would just give the british the excuse of a "moral backing" they were seeking to impose even more violence on Indian civilians, so non violence pulled out the rug from the morally superior charade of the British in the eyes of Indians and provided more Indians to not cooperate with the british.

Via the non-cooperation and anti-tax (salt satyagraha) movements, non violence as a strategy basically reduced the support system of Indian scum who were actually working for the british in screwing over other Indians under british orders, and the means for a self-sustaining system that would enslave itself for the brits. In this situation, non cooperation based on non violence turned out to be a very good strategy, and the weakening of the british economy after war made it impossible for them to control an India that would not pay taxes from them and not provide the traitor class to do their dirty work. So non violence seems to be only part of the overall picture in Indian independence not the only one, and thus it is useful in some situations if one is lucky to have the right environment to make it work.

As an aside, "satyameva jayate" will only work if some set of humans work to get the satyam out so it can jayate at the end of the day...doesn't work if everyone sits on their butt and expect some divine superbeing to deliver justice. Anyway, last post on this, as this is all OT. apologies for digression.

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 20 Feb 2015 19:14

Ahinsa was a perfect tool for the British to continue subjugation of Indians and to prevent a massive violent uprising. British were subsequently shook up by Bose and Red Fort uprising / case.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Feb 2015 23:29

The same Ahimsa Control Technique is currently been used by anti-India Forces for different subjugation purposes and abandoning of adherence to one denomination to make them affiliate with another

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 21 Feb 2015 00:44

I apologize for even mentioning ahimsa here. Now, India-US thread?

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 21 Feb 2015 00:56

Deleted

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Feb 2015 04:05

KaranM, Since you asked, Ashwatthama Hatha, kunjerah is apadhrama. Drona had already caused the death of Abhimanyu and Ghatotkacha via Karna. He also had killed Virata raja and Drupada already. It is Yudhisthir who decides Drona needs to die and after a lot of stalemate, death and destruction, Krishna suggests an upaya. Besides folks like Drona cannot be killed ordinarily. It was wrong for him tot join the fight.
Thirdly, Yudhistir says the sentence but the latter part is inaudible which makes it a half truth or lie if you please.
And if you read the Vyasa Bharatam, the sapta rishis all come and tell Drona to give up and he does. The Pandavas, Krishan, Sanjay see the light leaving his body. Its his dead body that Drishtadyumna beheads. So even here Drona defeats the vara or boon that Drupada got.

Evan after Vyasa has Bhisma describing Apaddharma in Shanti and Anushasan parvas, he is still troubled and makes Yudhistir spends some time in naraka for his 'lie'.

So Mahabharata is quite complex.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 21 Feb 2015 07:58

We should at most be as ahimsic as the Americans. Now can we have an Gandhian ahimsa index for countries (on the lines of the 'religious phreedom index' unkil's non-state actors routinely churn out and parade around as khangressional earrings)?

But yobama seeking to talk down to yindians yusing Gandhian memes was in poor taste.

Yawn.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 21 Feb 2015 15:12

Ramana my point exactly. A deliberate ploy utilized for the greater good and even those who do it know what they are doing. Point is that when the odds are so highly stavked against you, even an Avatar has to employ such strategem to have the right side win. The Mahabharata is full of this. Otherwise righteous people gihhting for the wrong side because they were scorned, or took immediate duty over dharma and so forth. This tells me two things, when times get very bad, winning takes precedemce. India has a long history of powerful people doing the worst damage since they forget the big picture of dharma. I am reminded of how many befuddled patriotic types support INC/TSP/Maoism.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Feb 2015 15:39

So, the POTUS was poking his nose where it was not wanted, after all...

Obama welcomes PM Modi’s assurance of equal respect to all faiths

Feb 21, 2015

From Lalit K Jha Washington, Feb 21 (PTI) US President Barack Obama has welcomed the recent remarks of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in which he condemned religious based violence and gave an assurance that his government will give equal respect to all religions.

"The President welcomed Prime Minister Modi's February 17 condemnation of religious-based violent acts, and his assurance that his government will give equal respect to all religions," the White House said on its website yesterday in response to an online petition.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 21 Feb 2015 16:09

Seriously unprofessional on the part of GOTUS / POTUS or whatever alphabet soup it chooses to call itself

Has the largest GDP in the world and does not know when to keep its trap shut and when not to.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Feb 2015 16:20

Arjun wrote:Seriously unprofessional of the GOTUS / POTUS or whatever alphabet soup it chooses to call itself

Has the largest GDP in the world and does not know when to keep its trap shut and when not to.

This was preplanned and was aimed to create chaos during the dilli elections. atithi devo bhava should not apply to such termites.

This was a devious and orchestrated effort to undermine NaMo and prop up the aap.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 21 Feb 2015 16:39

Obama is just a puppet.Its the christian imperialists of the deep state who are behind it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Feb 2015 16:42

+108.
the reach of EJs into the white house under any admin is very impressive.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Feb 2015 16:59

svenkat wrote:Obama is just a puppet.Its the christian imperialists of the deep state who are behind it.

I did not want to say that

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Feb 2015 17:03

Singha wrote:+108.
the reach of EJs into the white house under any admin is very impressive.

The deep state is hitting back and quite openly too.

The minute foreign funding of NGOs is restricted or controlled, the affairs of the US state and it's reach is severely curtailed.

NaMo should kick the buggers in the nuts and go right ahead.

No visa to USCIRF or whatever, withdraw all religious visas. Makes us look like some poor cousin colonial state.

Now we also know who exactly is behind khujliwal and his motley gang, as also the english and hindi DDM press.

This election is coming back to bite us in the rear, repeatedly...

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 21 Feb 2015 18:14

Food for thought. If this is true, this represents a complete different paradigm based on realities on the ground and in the geo-political sense. This should be encouraged and nurtured and can represent a mutual beneficial relationship.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/02/u ... lated.html

I know that there are a lot of doubters and critics of US such as Phillip but this should not stop India from making the attempt. The risks are minimal compared to the gains that India would get from this relationship. I think India can develop this into a relationship where India won't be a poodle but be a regional player (India can't be a global player, not yet, her internal structure and assets do not allow for such a thing realistically) where US being a global player can complement India in its regional aspirations and India can complement USA in its global aspirations. Furthermore, I am seeing a paradigm movement on the US side from being in the Pakistan camp into India camp. Based on my living and interactions with many people in the government and business, an overwhelming majority want improved relations with India and they are quite tired of Pakistan to the extent that they are willing to accommodate Indian concerns re Pakistan and ensure that Pakistan remain a minor player. They will not attempt Pakistan to balance India out.

Yes USA wants India to balance China out but so do we for our security interests. So I see nothing wrong with nurturing and developing this relationship further and throwing our customary knee jerk reactions to whatever US does and treat them with deep suspicion as some posters so do often. For instance, if we build our relations with US, any conflict we have with China, we can be sure that US would protect our sea trade from the growing Chinese naval threat. I am sure that US has come to the point where supplying weapons to Pakistan produces no tangible results since US is cutting its losses in Afghanistan and building a second route that excludes Pakistan. For instance, if Iran and US can repair their relationship, it can represent an opportunity for US and India to exclude Pakistan from their national security considerations when dealing with each other. For instance, US will no longer be beholden to Pakistan requests in exchange for safe passage through its territory to Afghanistan and keep paying off Pakistan's money problems.

US is at a point where it recognizes the point of diminishing returns from Pakistan. India should keep this momentum up where US will come to the point that it would be in US interests if it allows India to deal with Pakistan as it wishes and just provide back support to India as it deals with Pakistan whenever the need arises and in exchange, India support US in its dealings on a global stage. After all, US and India share a very similar outlook on the global stage such as rule of the law and free trade. Russia cannot provide those things as evidenced by its large corruption, deep racism towards non white foreigners (Russia is way way more racist that US could ever be and very intolerant of dharmic religions. Don't even bother trying to deny it or sugarcoat it. It is what it is), and largely mainly kleptocracy rule. Putin may be a smart cookie but I would not trust any of my relatives with them, even my distant relatives.

I do not think we should squander this opportunity because of our past dislike. If Modi could get over the insult that US gave to him while he was CM of Gujarat and become friendly with US because the interests of India demand such a thing, so should we and follow Modi's example.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 21 Feb 2015 19:01

^^^ Does anyone -- ever -- even wonder how many such afsars are?

So much effort goes into writing these articles so they contain an ounce of news in a ton of bullmanure. Why not spend that effort justifying your job as a journalist. And then somehow it results in impassionate debates on everything from valmiki and mahabharat to gandhi by the public.

member_26011 · Post by **member_26011** » 21 Feb 2015 19:04

IMHO, Ombaba's visit to India was too good to be a shining example of strategic convergence. Kuch nahin ho paya, bas namaste kar chal diye, more or less, and then aap ke hath mein aam de gaye. It would make no sense for someone looking to create a strong relationship with Bharat to act that way, when our view simply says that we accept the major paths as valid and stand despite being victims of religious intolerance for 100s of years. This was an attempt to grab some other audience. If we look at it from the perspective of the timeline, as I argued for under burkha, there appears to be a beneficiary, at least in principle. 67 result had some of this to thank for in puppie-jhuppie Delhi. Very feasible. As the hegemon, the US must think it needs to manage India somewhere on the totem pole. Where, I don't really know. However, strategic convergences and such fatuous statements like oldest and largest democracy...what flunkie would fall for that anyway. Bharath should continue to extend its hand, at least the hobos reveal themselves more easily that way. I think however that it should continue to rightly resist to be totemized by the US as best as it can. Whether the Prime Minister's win-win approach will be successful is not clear yet but it's better than anything we've seen and is upsetting a lot of people, I'd say.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 21 Feb 2015 21:58

chetak wrote:So, the POTUS was poking his nose where it was not wanted, after all...

Obama welcomes PM Modi’s assurance of equal respect to all faiths

Feb 21, 2015

From Lalit K Jha Washington, Feb 21 (PTI) US President Barack Obama has welcomed the recent remarks of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in which he condemned religious based violence and gave an assurance that his government will give equal respect to all religions.

"The President welcomed Prime Minister Modi's February 17 condemnation of religious-based violent acts, and his assurance that his government will give equal respect to all religions," the White House said on its website yesterday in response to an online petition.

Chetak-ji, yes it was pre-planned. This was the cover (posting more from the above article):

Launched by the New York-based Sikh for Justice, the online petition had urged Obama before his India trip to raise the issue of “Sikh Genocide” and “Sikhs’ Right to Self-determination” during his talks with Modi.

The petition had attracted more than 125,000 signatures. The White House responds to petition in less than a month after it was launched.

Thanking those who signed the petition, the White House said during his recent trip to India, the President discussed the importance of religious freedom and tolerance in India on January 27 during his speech at Siri Fort in New Delhi.

So Ombaba was taking care of his constituents' interests onlee, us natives shouldn't think it was interference.

And here is the self-serving SFJ pontificating under Foggy Bottom inspired righteousness:

Commending Obama’s principal stand on equal status to all religions, SFJ legal advisor Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, said “White House’s response to Sikh group’s petition is yet another reminder to Modi that India’s success depends on giving all religious communities freedom and right to profess, practice and propagate their faith without the fear of persecution”.

While Obama in his speech in India clearly affirmed the equal status for Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains and Budhists in America, Modi in his February 17 response on religious tolerance failed to address the issue of Article 25(b) which labels ‘Sikhs’ as ‘Hindus’, Pannun said.

What to do, we are land of the unfree and home of the meek onlee. That's why we want lectures from better knowing SFJ and their masters in Foggy Bottom.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Feb 2015 22:26

Hitesh, NaMo put aside all the past insults and acted in Indian interests by inviting Ombaba to R-Day as chief guest. In turn BO spat on him while in Delhi and again in DC with his religious tolerance speech. There never was any reciprocity on US side. So dont blame NaMo.

what US is doing is getting ready to pass the wheel to China. The strategic engagement with India is to prevent the passing of the wheel too rapidly or too early.

When India just ordered P-25A frigates which were long over due under do notthing Maun Mohan Singh govt, Western press is tom-tomming it as an anti China move!

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 21 Feb 2015 22:41

Hitesh wrote:Food for thought. If this is true, this represents a complete different paradigm based on realities on the ground and in the geo-political sense. This should be encouraged and nurtured and can represent a mutual beneficial relationship.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2015/02/u ... lated.html

I know that there are a lot of doubters and critics of US such as Phillip but this should not stop India from making the attempt. The risks are minimal compared to the gains that India would get from this relationship. I think India can develop this into a relationship where India won't be a poodle but be a regional player (India can't be a global player, not yet, her internal structure and assets do not allow for such a thing realistically) where US being a global player can complement India in its regional aspirations and India can complement USA in its global aspirations. Furthermore, I am seeing a paradigm movement on the US side from being in the Pakistan camp into India camp. Based on my living and interactions with many people in the government and business, an overwhelming majority want improved relations with India and they are quite tired of Pakistan to the extent that they are willing to accommodate Indian concerns re Pakistan and ensure that Pakistan remain a minor player. They will not attempt Pakistan to balance India out.

Yes USA wants India to balance China out but so do we for our security interests. So I see nothing wrong with nurturing and developing this relationship further and throwing our customary knee jerk reactions to whatever US does and treat them with deep suspicion as some posters so do often. For instance, if we build our relations with US, any conflict we have with China, we can be sure that US would protect our sea trade from the growing Chinese naval threat. I am sure that US has come to the point where supplying weapons to Pakistan produces no tangible results since US is cutting its losses in Afghanistan and building a second route that excludes Pakistan. For instance, if Iran and US can repair their relationship, it can represent an opportunity for US and India to exclude Pakistan from their national security considerations when dealing with each other. For instance, US will no longer be beholden to Pakistan requests in exchange for safe passage through its territory to Afghanistan and keep paying off Pakistan's money problems.

US is at a point where it recognizes the point of diminishing returns from Pakistan. India should keep this momentum up where US will come to the point that it would be in US interests if it allows India to deal with Pakistan as it wishes and just provide back support to India as it deals with Pakistan whenever the need arises and in exchange, India support US in its dealings on a global stage. After all, US and India share a very similar outlook on the global stage such as rule of the law and free trade. Russia cannot provide those things as evidenced by its large corruption, deep racism towards non white foreigners (Russia is way way more racist that US could ever be and very intolerant of dharmic religions. Don't even bother trying to deny it or sugarcoat it. It is what it is), and largely mainly kleptocracy rule. Putin may be a smart cookie but I would not trust any of my relatives with them, even my distant relatives.

I do not think we should squander this opportunity because of our past dislike. If Modi could get over the insult that US gave to him while he was CM of Gujarat and become friendly with US because the interests of India demand such a thing, so should we and follow Modi's example.

Good points Hitesh saar, but let me bring up 2 counter points.

Quoting from the article:

After several years of silence on this issue, the officials renewed a push from Washington for New Delhi to sign three “foundational agreements” of defence cooperation --- the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA); Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA); and a Logistic Support Agreement (LSA).

The foundational agreements are extremely important. So far, the fact that they have not been signed has not really been an impediment… But there will come a point as our relationship matures… that those agreements are going to become very serious issues in moving forward to the next step, either in a particular project, or in the broader expansion of our defence relationship”, said Handelman.

Very clearly stated - we can do this cooperation for these small things now, no problem. But to move forward, India needs to sign these agreements. They all sound nice in principle, but they also mean that the US could put our systems on hold when we act on our interests (which may not be in theirs).

For example, encrypted and secure comms facilities on-board the C-17/C-130J - I am happy that we were forced by the CISMOA requirement to install our own gear. But even that is no panacea, as the Pentagon can dispatch its so-called Tiger teams to inspect the equipment that we bought with our own money to ensure that we are not 'distorting its use'. So the more we purchase from the US, the more opportunities their Tiger teams have to inspect at their convenience. Also, let's say the INS Jalashwa or a C-17 is deployed in some important mission - do we abort it and spend time removing our customized gear so these teams can inspect the ship/plane?

Senior US officials, briefing the media in Bengaluru, say President Barack Obama’s White House is nurturing defence ties with India so carefully thcat no Washington bureaucrat below the rank of deputy assistant secretary of state or defence can reject the release of technology to India.
<snip>
Tacitly acknowledging that the US bureaucracy has not entirely understood the importance of the US-India relationship, Handelman explained: “There are dedicated and patriotic American civil servants working in the regulatory system, but sometimes they don’t see every strategic level aspects of every initiative.”

This is the second issue: if nurtured only by the political leadership in the White House and some senior bureaucrats, there is no push to institutionally change the mindset across the spectrum of the USG. So what happens when Obama demits office end of next year? His team will leave, and so will most of the senior leadership in all USG departments. Unlike India's IAS bureaucracy that can ensure some continuity, the US system changes pretty much most senior appointees every time the President changes. So chances are, if the supposedly pro-India policy is driven only by the senior guys, the next set of senior guys don't have to continue it. Especially if Hillary/Dems win again. Though at this point I think that is unlikely and the GOP will win the WH come 2016, but who will lead the GOP at that point is up in the air. Let alone what their India policy is. Too much uncertainty to stake our interests on.

Not saying that we shouldn't talk to the US, but keep an eye on the bigger picture. Let's face it, the US needs us to balance China, and that's all. Maybe have us fight the Chinese again, in a repeat of '62. They don't really need us for anything else, and I don't see that change significantly in the future. We are culturally just too different from the Americans, and being a democracy, are harder to deal with.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Feb 2015 23:02

@Arshyam ^^^ so can Russians with/without any foundational agreements. They have withheld critical tech on T-90s, Brahmos and even refused to let us in on the investigation on why the T-50 engine flamed out during a demo to the Indian team. This despite a $295MM down payment on the PAK/FA.

The only way the US is going embargo anything on India going forward is nuke tests. In that event, even if we bought Rafales or any military gear from the EU/Japan, would also be sanctionable (note Mistrales to Russia). Nuke tests aside, the US is not likely to impose any sanctions for example to stop us attacking Pakistan for example or for any trade reason.

BAck to nuke tests, there is another window about to open up when the P5 need (particularly the US) need to test new designs, just like 1996. That's when we can also get in the game.

CISMOA may not even be needed by India if it is not interested in interoperability--the IN has done quite well w/o CISMOPA systems. The real problem I have with LSA for example, is that it appears to be a system of credits where a US vessel can for example, fill up at an Indian facility and provide an IOU which can be redeemed by an Indian naval vessel at a US facility. Problem is they are more likely to visit and run up IOUs than we are. As to EUMA, we've already agreed on a system of checks for US supplied stuff.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Feb 2015 23:05

Arshyam Saar: excellent post. Imho, from just before Indian independence until Kennedy, the gulf was narrowest but has been widening as the US became extremely "in God we trust" ideological to counter communist expansion in Europe. India's plurality could not sit with the abrahamic world view. But india had its own problems - dynasty worship, hagiography, dictatorial leaders, corruption, and poverty - which pushed us into Russian orbit. Nixon-Chiba happened somewhere in that time span.
That accelerated the widening of the gulf. Bill Clinton wanted to come closer a little - probably for his own selfish reasons - which continued somewhat u see Bush. But president Obama completely reversed because he is also ideological nt a realist. Probably we should take the republicans over dems any day. Even though that are driven by religious sensibilities, at least they are more realistic and do not bring domestic race/gender/religious freedomolitics into relations with India.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 21 Feb 2015 23:08

Some further points:

Hitesh wrote:For instance, if we build our relations with US, any conflict we have with China, we can be sure that US would protect our sea trade from the growing Chinese naval threat.

This will happen only if we become a vassal like UK/NATO. Even then, there is no record of the US actually doing anything fight for EU - the last time they did was WWII, where they waited till Europe was already tired before getting into the war in 1941 (Pearl Harbour was just an excuse). The cold war was based on deterrence and MAD with the FSU, and America does not have the stomach for such a standoff anymore for anyone, let alone India. Also, considering that there is a very real threat to India from 2 nuclear states, do you really think the US will offer such cover to us, assuming we sign all alphabet soup agreements?

Hitesh wrote:US is at a point where it recognizes the point of diminishing returns from Pakistan. India should keep this momentum up where US will come to the point that it would be in US interests if it allows India to deal with Pakistan as it wishes and just provide back support to India as it deals with Pakistan whenever the need arises and in exchange, India support US in its dealings on a global stage.

Just like the US is nurturing India as a counter to China, don't you think they will nurture Pakistan to counter India? Ultimately, the US' goal is ensure their sole supremacy, with next rung powers hobbled by near home threats. I am not saying that the US policy is wrong, just calling it out. India understands this, so does not subscribe to a single camp, nor have dreams about US ending support to Pakistan.

Hitesh wrote: After all, US and India share a very similar outlook on the global stage such as rule of the law and free trade.

Again, both true and false. The true part is what you are probably referring to: movement of people, IT industry, clothing exports, Boeing planes delivered on time with no fuss, etc. But we will do ourselves a disservice if we don't recognize the false part of that statement: pharma and IP protection issues, WTO food security disagreements, GM crops, visa issues, multilateral engagements (BRICS bank, f.e.) outside the traditional western institutions, etc.

Hitesh wrote:Russia cannot provide those things as evidenced by its large corruption, deep racism towards non white foreigners (Russia is way way more racist that US could ever be and very intolerant of dharmic religions. Don't even bother trying to deny it or sugarcoat it. It is what it is), and largely mainly kleptocracy rule. Putin may be a smart cookie but I would not trust any of my relatives with them, even my distant relatives.

Bringing up Russia here is not really useful, as India's relations with the US is not a zero sum game. We talk to everyone on their merits, so one need not exclude another. Russia may be all that you say, I don't know much about ground realities there, but at least they don't insist that we don't talk the US or lecture us about freedom and such internal issues.

Hitesh wrote:I do not think we should squander this opportunity because of our past dislike. If Modi could get over the insult that US gave to him while he was CM of Gujarat and become friendly with US because the interests of India demand such a thing, so should we and follow Modi's example.

It is not about likes or dislikes. It is about cold hard calculations to benefit our interests that not swayed by any one country's slick PR. We may all diss Russia's attempts at PR, but the US has the best PR machine out there.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Feb 2015 23:10

As long as they pay money for filling up or keep fuel supplies in tanks owned by India ne under Indian control, why should that be a problem? It is like they pre-pay for their fuel needs. If they don't use it within a calendar year of two they forfeit the fuel.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 22 Feb 2015 04:15

ramana wrote: what US is doing is getting ready to pass the wheel to China. The strategic engagement with India is to prevent the passing of the wheel too rapidly or too early.

Is there even a shred of evidence to support this ?

Shanmukh · Post by **Shanmukh** » 22 Feb 2015 04:15

It seems that some people on this board have encountered deep & abiding Russian racism towards non-whites. Please educate me, ladies & gentlemen. Exactly when did you people travel in Russia & what are your experiences with Russian racism.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 22 Feb 2015 04:33

arshyam wrote:
Hitesh wrote:US is at a point where it recognizes the point of diminishing returns from Pakistan. India should keep this momentum up where US will come to the point that it would be in US interests if it allows India to deal with Pakistan as it wishes and just provide back support to India as it deals with Pakistan whenever the need arises and in exchange, India support US in its dealings on a global stage.
Just like the US is nurturing India as a counter to China, don't you think they will nurture Pakistan to counter India? Ultimately, the US' goal is ensure their sole supremacy, with next rung powers hobbled by near home threats. I am not saying that the US policy is wrong, just calling it out. India understands this, so does not subscribe to a single camp, nor have dreams about US ending support to Pakistan.

That China must be contained is freely discussed in american strategic circles right down to the specifics. Care to show me any stretch of such discussion about India ? There's never been any US attempt to "contain" india which seems to be a constant there here. The pakis have been singularly excellent to find a way to get US military aid and the US is often short-sightedly content to give them just that. Even during periods of time that the US has been an outright ally of Pakistan, there has been criticism of the same and appraisal that India was the natural partner for the US inspite of neutrality during the cold war. Given our absolute hostility to the west's position during the cold war, we lacked any traction with the US to be able to stop from doing what it wanted.

Here's one extract from Magnificent Delusions - excellent book. Do read it sometime.

“Blowtorch Bob” concluded that “Pakistan’s chief preoccupation will long remain India,” but if the United States had to choose among the countries of the subcontinent, “there is little question that India (because of its sheer size and resources) is where we must put our chief reliance.” Although the Ayub regime was seen as more “pro-Western” than the Indians, it was “questionable whether most Pakistanis are really less neutralist than Indians.”

Haqqani, Husain (2013-11-05). Magnificent Delusions: Pakistan, the United States, and an Epic History of Misunderstanding (Kindle Locations 1942-1946). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 22 Feb 2015 04:34

matrimc wrote:India's plurality could not sit with the abrahamic world view.

arshyam · Post by **arshyam** » 22 Feb 2015 05:03

KrishnaK wrote:That China must be contained is freely discussed in american strategic circles right down to the specifics. Care to show me any stretch of such discussion about India ?

What's there to discuss? Haven't we been contained since the fifties? Remember CENTO?

KrishnaK wrote:There's never been any US attempt to "contain" india which seems to be a constant there here.

Yeah, right. Arming a hostile entity for 50 years while professing friendship to democracy is not containment. Allowing the said hostile entity to procure even nuclear weapons (Clinton was aware of Chinese shipments around '95) and weapons so that India will always be looking over her shoulder is not containment. Closing the nuclear weapons door to us just after China tested in '64 through NPT was not containment. Imposing sanctions and asking other 'friends' like Canada to impose sanctions after the '74 PNE was not containment. (One may remember that our biggest neighbour tested nuclear weapons in '64 and our '74 was in response, sort of). USS Enterprise in '71 was a friendly tourist mission onlee, nothing to do with containment. Fomenting terrorism in J&K through cat's paws like the Hurriyat through the good offices of a certain Ms Raphael - thereby keeping us on the defensive always was not containment. Imposing sanctions on us after Pokhran II in '98 and confiscating the LCA CLAWs without respect for our IP, setting back our program by 10 years was not containment. Pressuring Russia to withhold the shipments of cryogenic engines and eventually setting our space programme back by ~20 years is not containment. Need I go on?

KrishnaK wrote:The pakis have been singularly excellent to find a way to get US military aid and the US is often short-sightedly content to give them just that. Even during periods of time that the US has been an outright ally of Pakistan, there has been criticism of the same and appraisal that India was the natural partner for the US inspite of neutrality during the cold war. Given our absolute hostility to the west's position during the cold war, we lacked any traction with the US to be able to stop from doing what it wanted.

Yes yes, it is our fault onlee, the US was being benevolent and taken for a ride by the Pakis. We should not have inked the treat with the FSU in '71, and waited for the refugees in Bangladesh overwhelm us. Everything would have been hunky dory.