Indian Foreign Policy

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 07 Apr 2010 11:16

Exactly, a lot is said in the article. Terror has to end and what not. Experience has shown us to keep our expectations low.

This is what B Raman had referred to Congress policy under Indira and Rajiv. Talk-talk, hit -hit. That means you keep talking and keep hitting.

I am not sure what prevents dont talk-only hit approach. Too harsh for the polity??

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Apr 2010 11:55

When they mentioned MHA they mean counter terrorism once the terrorists cross over the border. Its not same as earlier policies stated above.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Apr 2010 15:28

There's a wonderful feature in the latest Frontline,not to be missed at all,by the current Cuban ambassador,on the visit to India by Che Guevara during Nehru's time (how many know of it?) and his impressions of the country from a magazine article.It is brilliant.The foreign policy of Nehru and Mrs.G. with respect to Cuba and India's admiration for the Cuban struggle comes out v.strongly.Nehru's visit to Castro's hotel,the first ever by a foreign head to meet him,when he was attending the UN Gen.Assembly, was never forgotten by him.This shows how small gestures by some of our great leaders to leaders and countries far smaller than India were never forgotten and one of the qualities which made these leaders truly great,"those who make small people feel great...".sadly,we have not displayed enough of concern for the smaller nations around the world,many of them in NAM,whose mineral and energy wealth today has made them important nations economically and which China has wooed relentlessly usurping India's traditional strong ties.

I recently had opportunity to meet an old friend from the diplomatic corps,who bemoaned the attitude of "Delhi" and its ignorance and unwillingness to listen and learn to voices from outside and diplomats on the spot in some cases.Our indifference in developing ties of lasting friendship with those "inferior" nations,which we have some times treated with an overbearing attitude,is costing us dearly now.The current crop of diplomats too seem-and one may be very wrong about this,but they do seem to lack the stature,sophistication and sensitivity of many of our former stalwarts like TN Kaul,Natwar Singh,Dixit,to mention just a few.

As Eleanor Roosvelt reportedly said,"great minds discuss ideas,average minds events and small minds people.."

Here is another interesting piece on India's "Great power plans",by NV Subramaniam.
http://the-diplomat.com/2010/03/29/indi ... wer-plans/

Excerpts:

Although India doesn’t have a formalised plan for acquiring great power status, the outlines of a consistent grand strategy have been clear for some time—strategic autonomy through interlocking networks of interests with world powers, and the building of military capabilities based on growing economic prowess.

This intuitive two-pronged approach, enunciated by the nation’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, is likely to be in place at least until 2050, when India is expected by some projections to be vying with the United States for the position of world’s second-largest economy after China.

Nehru introduced the principle of strategic autonomy so that India wouldn’t be sucked into or trapped by the opposing ideologies of an intensifying Cold War. Understanding that India’s stance would be unappreciated unless it built a vehicle for its position, Nehru mooted the Non-Aligned Movement, a bloc scorned by both Cold War powers (although both sides were privately grateful for Nehru’s brokering efforts in the Korean War).

Yet the bloc survives today—toothless it may be, but it still occasionally provides India with a moral compass. Meanwhile, India has kept up its studiedly ‘neutral’ position, contributing unflinchingly to UN peacekeeping efforts, while staying out of non-UN-sanctioned endeavours such as Iraq, and ensuring its contribution to Afghanistan has been purely humanitarian and developmental

The key to understanding India’s strategy is the so-called Mandala approach to geo-strategy and the theory that Indian security lays in concentric circles. The most immediate of these circles radiates from its centre to its neighbours, the second touches the Gulf of Aden and Singapore on either side, and the third circle reaches around the rest of the globe to embrace the great powers. This theory suggests that India cannot truly be secure until all three circles are pacified.

Such a theory is nothing new—indeed it has prevailed continuously from the third century BC, when Chanakya—India’s own Machiavelli—propounded it. But recent decades have shown India may now be on the path to mastering these circles.

The critical change that has allowed India to continue to move forward was the end of the Cold War, from which it emerged both territorially intact (many had predicted India would go the way of the Soviet Union) and with a newly-opened economy that has since grown at an average rate of about eight percent a year. This growth has been mostly based on its domestic market, unlike the export-oriented economy of China, thus shielding India from the brunt of the recent global recession.

Such growth has also unbound India’s appetite for embracing an interlocking network of interests with nations across the globe, weak and strong—a necessary development to ensure its continued rise and security. For example, India has partially co-opted the Burmese regime with money and materials in an effort to contain Chinese influence and guerrilla groups operating in India’s north-east.

Meanwhile, the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal was implemented in an effort to overcome Non-Proliferation Treaty and Nuclear Suppliers Group-related proscriptions on dual-use technology exports to non-parties such as India, something that has helped the country tackle uranium fuel shortages while giving long-term stakes to US, Russian, French and perhaps Japanese nuclear power reactor manufacturers.

In addition, it is political as much as technical considerations that are weighing on India’s choice of where to purchase 126 multi-role combat aircraft—a major defence deal—with India warning the United States that it will be out of the reckoning if it sells F-16s to Pakistan as part of the Afghanistan bailout package.

Such defiance of the United States on the fighter aircraft issue marks a shift from the Cold War years as India seeks to bolster its regional, South Asian hegemony. This shift has also seen a recent effort to renew ties with Russia, which has been the quickest nation to sign up new reactors for India; price disputes on the Gorshkov aircraft carrier have also been resolved.

And, despite recent tensions, there has been progress on building pragmatic relations with China, overcoming the emotionalism of the 1962 war between the two (a war that India lost). For example, India and China were part of the BASIC group that prevented the United States and Europe from hijacking the Copenhagen Summit agenda, while India also has placed considerable value on intense consultation with Russia, Iran and China on Afghanistan, where the terrifying prospect of an Islamic caliphate looms, with snatchable Pakistani nukes nearby.

It would be a spectacular strategic breakthrough if India could dissuade China from encouraging Pakistani bellicosity (an attitude emboldened by earlier Chinese nuclear and missile proliferation). But India likely doesn’t yet have enough strategic weight to make that possible, and in the near-term can only count on a failing Pakistan becoming everyone’s headache, something that would prompt a range of international countermeasures.

There is, of course, a flip side to India’s approach. Because it sees no value, so far at least, in intercontinental power projection outside of the Indian Ocean littoral, India is limiting its great power ambitions by stunting its huge and growing military prowess; it is also so far yet to gain significant experience of foreign combat or intervention. It is therefore a victim of its own relative insularity in South Asia, meaning it can be effectively blackmailed by even weak states like Pakistan (although this approach still has the merit, for now, of meaning there are generally few questions raised about whether India’s rise is a peaceful one).

It’s clear that taming the three concentric circles of interest—a principle that has survived 23 centuries and recurs regularly in internal strategic discourse—is the key to India becoming a great power. Circumstance may have prevented this occurring until now, but recent developments suggest India is working to a time, perhaps not too far away, when it is a leading economy and a power able to reorder the world to its liking.

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 07 Apr 2010 17:54

csharma wrote: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 767725.cms

Talks and terrorism were controversially delinked at Sharm el-Sheikh. Talks and counterterrorism therefore also stand delinked. While the prime minister negotiates with the Pakistani government with a velvet glove, the home minister will not feel constrained to use an iron fist to deal with terrorism directed against India.

I too sincerely hope this is not an empty dream that congress has put out there for educated elites. Just strategy to buy time and raise hopes. Also can some one explain what MMS means by delinking terror at S-E-S paragraph. I am afraid I could not understand what author wanted to say there.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 14 Apr 2010 20:46

Sarkozy reiterates France's support to India for UNSC's permanent membership

"President Sarkozy reiterated French support for the permanent membership of United National Security Council (UNSC) for India," said Ministry of External Affairs spokesman Vishnu Prakash informed journalists here."Both the leaders held discussions in which the French President remarked that India should get its rightful place in the international committee of nations," he further stated.

Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh on Tuesday held bilateral talks with the French President Sarkozy after the opening plenary session of the Nuclear Security Summit here."Both the leaders also had a good discussion on regional issues of mutual interest including the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he added "They, particularly, agreed to beef up the efforts of the international community on counter terrorism, which touches everybody, affects everybody," he informed.

France and India have extensive strategic co-operation, with the military services of both nations conducting joint exercises. India has purchased much military equipment from France, especially the French Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft and the Scorphne class submarines. France was one of the few nations who did not condemn India's nuclear tests in 1998 and has supported India's bid to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council as well as G-8.

France is one of the largest suppliers of nuclear fuel to India, and signed a "Framework Agreement for Civil Nuclear Co-operation" in January 2008 during French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to India. During the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh's visit to France after India's waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), both nations signed an agreement that would pave the way for the sale of French-made nuclear reactors to India on September 30, 2008.

France and India also maintain a discreet "strategic dialogue" that covers joint cooperation against terrorism. However, India has objected to France's military assistance to Pakistan, with whom it is in conflict. In July 2009 the French government invited the Dr. Manmohan Singh to be their chief guest at the French national day (Bastile day) celebrations. Both countries pledged for closer economic, strategic and cultural cooperation on this occasion. By Ravinder Singh Robin (ANI)

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Apr 2010 13:38

Since he is the Min of State for Foreign "Affairs",this amusing viewpoint from abroad shows how the current controversy is being seen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 45233.html

India's tweeting cricket boss hits minister for six

Politician accused of helping 'secret girlfriend' buy stake in new IPL team

By Andrew Buncombe in Delhi
Thursday, 15 April 2010

Excerpts:

A high-flying Indian minister is under mounting pressure to resign amid allegations over the ownership of a new cricket team in the lucrative Indian Premier League.

The urbane junior foreign minister Shashi Tharoor, a former high-ranking UN official whose reputation has increasingly been tarnished by a series of alleged political gaffes, is accused of using his personal position to help a consortium of friends to buy a new team in the highly popular competition.

What has given the allegations extra spice are claims that one of the consortium's members, a businesswoman who lives in Dubai, is the minister's secret girlfriend and that she has been given a free, lucrative stake in the team.

But over the weekend, Lalit Modi, the head of the IPL, used Twitter to "leak" details of the consortium's membership and to reveal that the businesswoman, Sunanda Pushkar, who he said was a friend of Mr Tharoor, had been given a $15m stake in the team. He further claimed that the minister had told him "not to get into who owns Rendezvous. Especially Sunanda Pushkar. Why?"

In Delhi, the opposition has demanded Mr Tharoor's resignation. Prakash Javedekar, a spokesman for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said last night: "It's a case of impropriety, of a minister who is using his official position to patronise his friends and there may be things that have not yet come out."

This is not the first time that Mr Tharoor has been at the centre of controversy over remarks he has made as one of the first prominent public figures to use Twitter in India.

Last year, his Tweets describing economy air travel as flying "cattle-class" left his Congress party fuming, given that the party leader, Sonia Gandhi, had directed ministers to fly coach to save money. He then offended his party when he tweeted his concerns about new visa policies the government was introducing.

Analysts say much of the controversy has to do with the manner of Mr Tharoor, who has never lacked confidence in his abilities, as well as jealousy within his party. A former UN under-secretary general and author of many books, he was appointed to a ministerial position immediately after being elected as an MP for the Keralan city of Trivandrum last year.

sunnyP · Post by **sunnyP** » 15 Apr 2010 16:24

Philip wrote:Since he is the Min of State for Foreign "Affairs",this amusing viewpoint from abroad shows how the current controversy is being seen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 45233.html

India's tweeting cricket boss hits minister for six

Interesting to see the media turn their attention from the 'Honourable ' Minister to Lalit Modi. Don't really care which of Modi's friends or family members work for the IPL but we sure do care that Mr Tharoor's girlfriend was given a free $15million share in a company which her boyfriend had helped to form.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 15 Apr 2010 16:38

after being elected as an MP for the Keralan city of Trivandrum last year.

Keralan city, eh? First time am admittedly hearing that cute phrase. Must be kosheer now that the Independent has used it, no?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Apr 2010 22:58

And to think we were going to inflict him on the world as Secy General of the UN!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Apr 2010 02:11

It may have spared us the unending series of semi-manufactured gaffes. It is clear that, even if he is the butt of a quiet downsizing campaign, he has been putting his own foot in his mouth with startling regularity. Surprising. And disappointing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 02:15

JE Menon wrote:It may have spared us the unending series of semi-manufactured gaffes. It is clear that, even if he is the butt of a quiet downsizing campaign, he has been putting his own foot in his mouth with startling regularity. Surprising. And disappointing.

It looks like he has many issues which disqualify him for public office. most likely he has links to D company thru his contacts.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 16 Apr 2010 02:21

Two articles which are food for thought. Please read it in full, hard to quote snippets

http://polaris.nationalinterest.in/2010 ... -archives/

e-mail, comes this from K. Subrahmanyam: Nehru was an internationalist and if he had been alive today he would have been a globaliser. For him nonalignment was a strategy, in fact a balance of power strategy in a bipolar world which could not go to war.

And
http://polaris.nationalinterest.in/2010 ... o-of-deng/

Chinese Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping is perhaps most closely associated with the maxim that China should “adopt a low profile and never take the lead.” If any major country has adhered closely to Deng’s suggestion, it is India.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 02:37

Anujan I agree with both. KS garu's perception of Nehru is same as I also think. JLN was a balance of power act for those times and when times changed (with collapse of FSU),it had to change. And same thing about US and India being allies of different sort. To date West has the overlord and his minions model. However they dont have the alliance between equals (read kautliya on this). Most likely in few decades, taking into account demographics and economics, it might become like Chola-Chalukyas where the India becomes Kolutunga. That might be their fear.

India's low profile was a self enforced one to counter the Angl propaganda that India would subsume the neighborhood to create greater India. States accession without clear explanation led to this inordinate fear. At other times it was acceptance of reality in the difference of power. After FSU went away the low profile became lower!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Apr 2010 02:46

>>most likely he has links to D company thru his contacts.

If you mean in the six degrees sense perhaps, but otherwise it would be a bit extreme I think to suggest he has links to Dawood ... Where do you see the link?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 16 Apr 2010 02:52

ramana wrote:Anujan I agree with both. KS garu's perception of Nehru is same as I also think. JLN was a balance of power act for those times and when times changed (with collapse of FSU),it had to change.

This is exactly what I had said before. Using internationalism JLN had created space for India. This was dismantled by the Indo-China war of 1962 (that is the purpose of the war) and death of JLN in 1964.

e-mail, comes this from K. Subrahmanyam: Nehru was an internationalist and if he had been alive today he would have been a globaliser. For him nonalignment was a strategy, in fact a balance of power strategy in a bipolar world which could not go to war.

Globalizing in India's term with India controlling its image with its own media is the key. During JLN time India did not have this capability

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 16 Apr 2010 03:32

JE Menon wrote:>>most likely he has links to D company thru his contacts.

If you mean in the six degrees sense perhaps, but otherwise it would be a bit extreme I think to suggest he has links to Dawood ... Where do you see the link?

I am not sure of the direct links but some indications -

1. Sunanda Pushkar's Dubai Link
2. Kochi franchise's request to have Dubai as their home pitch if Kochi stadium is not complete on time
3. Tharoor's Dubai connections - In the past he worked as a chirman to Apras Ventures based out of Dubai
4. Dawood's alleged SMS threat to Tharoor
5. Now Kochi franchise appointed Dubai based Harshad Mehta as its Chairman. (I dont think he is the famous HM of stocks scam)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Apr 2010 03:38

Its sixth sense and not six degrees of separation!

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 16 Apr 2010 04:06

After FSU went away the low profile became lower!

If they had not, we would Jugoslavia - II in south asia.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Apr 2010 11:04

Is this HM (the other great HM died some time ago) a member of the famous diamond family? If so then they have enough moolah for the deal.But who are the secret partners if any of the Kochi cavaliers?The IPL is now being called the Indian "Benami" league! Neat way in which Tharoor engineered his "dowry"!
"Sweat and Equity" by jove!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Apr 2010 18:39

RamaY,

Those 5 points are just links to Dubai, not Dawood, since Dubai is not equal to Dawood.

These days you will be hard pressed to find a handful of our senior party people and business people who have no links whatsoever to Dubai... Hell I have links to Dubai, and was once even stopped in Delhi airport because my surname was misread by a rookie immigration officer. However, what does that have to do with Dawood. This man is a terrorist of the worst kind, who has a direct hand in killing hundreds of Indians, making lives unbearable for many more, and still plans and plots to do India harm - all the while lolling about in his tacky track suits and longing for the Mumbai life which he can NEVER have again. If anybody needs to feel the hard hand of justice, it is he.

Whatever Tharoor's ills, and certainly of late he has shown quite a few (or perhaps it is just that he is no longer treated with kid gloves as a politician), we can be pretty sure a knowing association with Dawood is not one of them.

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Apr 2010 00:56

Furrin policy

Pakistan hails Manmohan's remark on nuclear deal

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Apr 2010 03:39

The drive to excel derives from a knowledge of one’s place in the larger context, an understanding of one’s own worth, a certain confidence and pride in one’s heritage. At least in the Indian policy-making circles, this is impossible as they all Macaulay’s children.

this quote from Anujan's link reminds me this...

The person who went to sleep with money in his pocket is begging for alms in his dream... His stomoch was full when he slept, but he is suffering from hunger in his dream..

There is only one solution to his problems.... Waking up!

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 17 Apr 2010 03:53

negi wrote:Furrin policy

Pakistan hails Manmohan's remark on nuclear deal

Negi-ji

That was one Chankiyan move by MMS.

So why are we bothered if Pakis get nuke reactors? They already have the bomb and we will be the first they use it against. Getting them a few reactors wont change the equation in any way. On the other hand, if Pakis try to negotiate a deal

1. There will be a media tamasha of all NPAs, Pissed of Senators from the other party, Media ityadi who go stir up AQK issue for everyone to see (Methinks Pakis can move on this only after AQK gets his 72)
2. Let them try to negotiate a deal with all the separation plan ityadi. It would mean a complete overhaul of their Nuke infrastructure (as opposed to the system in India, there is no civvie Nuke program in Pakistan)
3. We stand for universal disarmament and equal treatment of everyone and find NPT discriminatory onlee. So gels with our foreign policy

4. Let unkil go figure how to reconcile giving a deal to Pakis with sanctioning Iran

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 17 Apr 2010 05:21

I agree instead of wasting energies convincing Ombaba on futility of giving reactors we need to play the game using our brains not emotions. Its much easier to lobby on hill. Just sign 10 more reactors and ruskies will do our job in IAEA & NSG

arun · Post by **arun** » 18 Apr 2010 21:46

Dominique Moisi writing in the Guardian says “India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power”:

India's international unease

Unlike China, India is finding it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging 'Great Power' looked upon favourably by the west

Dominique Moisi
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 April 2010 17.00 BST

Some countries are naturally at ease with the concept and the reality of strategic power. ……………….. India is clearly in a different category. ……………………

in order to understand India's political and diplomatic relationship with the outside world, the most enlightening comparison is with America in 1920. Like the US after the first world war, India is realising that its status and role in the world have been deeply transformed in the last two decades. And, like America then, India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power. ……………….

India's unease about strategic power, and its resemblance to a gigantic European Union united only by the English language, reflects its ongoing search for a new international identity. In this quest, India is impaired by its lack of practice in the exercise of power on a grand scale. It is not about to become a second China – it lacks both the means and the ambition. That is a further reason for the west to engage and invest in India.

Guardian

arun · Post by **arun** » 19 Apr 2010 07:14

Shahshi Tharoor resigns from the post of Minister of State for External Affairs.

No great loss for our Nation:

Tharoor’s ‘too clever for his own good’ brand of politics led to his undoing

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Apr 2010 07:17

Seemed like a decent guy though.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Apr 2010 09:06

Carl_T wrote:Seemed like a decent guy though.

Carl_T garu, I really doubt his capabilities. His career appears to be scripted and he seem to have strong god fathers in UN or some world body such as WB or IMF. MMS's support for Tharoor may be from that network.

His Wiki link shows so many human rights orgs it is scary

Dr. Shashi Tharoor (Malayalam: ശശി തരൂ൪, Hindi: शशि थरुर (born 9 March 1956) is a member of the Indian Parliament from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in Kerala. A prolific author, columnist, journalist and human rights advocate, he served as the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information and as the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs. Presently, he serves on the Boards of Overseers of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Trustees of the Aspen Institute, and the Advisory of the Indo-American Arts Council, the American India Foundation, the World Policy Journal, the Virtue Foundation and the human rights organization Breakthrough. He is also serving as an adviser to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva, as a Fellow of the New York Institute of the Humanities, a Patron of the Dubai Modern School and the managing trustee of the Chandran Tharoor Foundation which he founded with his family and friends in the name of his late father,Chandran Tharoor.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 19 Apr 2010 09:36

Certainly he had neither the skills to play the game nor did he know the rules and he has an irritating accent, but he seemed like a well meaning person who readily expressed his opinions regardless of who didn't like it. Who knows though, that is the image I have of him.

The human rights groups are not surprising as I believe that is what he worked on at the UN.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Apr 2010 11:10

Surprising.During Nehru's days,when India was a giant on the world NAM stage and Nehru,Tito and Nasser where acknowledged international giants,India felt very much at ease with ita moral alternative to the Cold War.It found many friends across the world who were in the process of fighting for freedom or about to throw away the shackles of imperialism and colonialism.This too when India lacked the military muscle to sustain its moral message...and therein lies the pity.China's defeat of India in '62 and Nehru's departure immediately after,seems to have stopped ,as the Chinese hoped for,India's place at the world table as a great power.Arming proxy Pak who also take a swipe and bite at India in '65 and '71,saw India equated with Pak in a regional spat that endures to this day.It stunted our global view and barring Mrs.G. and Rajiv,the other Indian leaders who were at the helm of affairs were unable to break out of the regional issues that consumed India (Sri Lanka,terrorism with Pak,Kargil,etc.),complicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union,India's staunch ally and the end of the Cold War.Global dynamics saw a reshuffling of the "pack" and the US tried hard to be the only "joker",with solitary suzerainity "uber alles".

Under Dr.Singh,our international stance has become even more diluted,as we are being perceived as a growing powerful economy ,but lacking any "undercarriage" whatsoever,allowing Pak to create mayhem in India at will through terrorism and afraid to open our mouths at international fora for fear of upsetting Uncle Sam.From being described earlier as an "elephant" ,we have reduced ourselves to the status and size of a "mouse",while alsoallowing the Pakis to be considered our equal as a "rat"! It is only after getting shafted repeatedly by Uncle Sam over its mollycoddling of Pak's continuing agression,do we hear a mild squeak from the PMO about Headley,etc.It is sincerely hoped that India not only grows once more in size,but also roars like a tiger or lion when it matters,leave alone trumpeting its importance and size like an elephant as it should.

PS:Now that Shashi Tharoor has departed...and good riddance too,at least we will not bray like a donkey!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Apr 2010 11:19

Philip wrote:Surprising.During Nehru's days,when India was a giant on the world NAM stage and Nehru,Tito and Nasser where acknowledged international giants,India felt very much at ease with ita moral alternative to the Cold War.

It found many friends across the world who were in the process of fighting for freedom or about to throw away the shackles of imperialism and colonialism.

This was a period of manufactured glory of India and NAM with western media making the image.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Apr 2010 13:29

I don't think that it was so.There was a genuine change in the world order with the "end of empire".Nations across Asia,Africa and the Americas were infused with a new vitality as they became their own masters and bonded with other nations who had suffered similar experiences of the colonial era.What the west saw and admired was the sophistication of many of the leaders of these free nations,many in NAM,who had captured the imagination of their peoples and in the case of Nehru,who along with the other prominent freedom fighters,had removed the British from India non-violently.In the aftermath of WW2,with all its destruction,nations and peoples around the world were looking for another way of co-existing with their neighbours in a civilised manner.There were giants in those days in NAM.Sukarno,Nasser,Tito,Nehru,Kenyatta,Nkrumah,Nyere,Mrs.Bandaranaike-the first woman PM ever.They had huge followings in those days.In the Americas,Castro and Che were icons and Col.Ghadaffi was the Arab flavour of the time after Nasser's death.The Cold War sadly froze what could have been a revolution in international understanding.Proxy wars as in Vietnam kept fanning the flames of conflict and even though it has ended ,Cold War thinking still clouds US diplomacy in the Indian subcontinent,where it prefers to please Paki military dictatorships and "strongmen",rather than true democrats like India.

In the multi-polar world,whcih the GOI is now taking a hard second look at by joining the BRIC and Shangahai Group,the stage is set again for strong leadership from the free independent nations who were part of NAM (and still are),to leverage their strengths synergetically with other likeminded nations who prefer a multi-polar world rather than one ruled over by superpowers.

kittoo · Post by **kittoo** » 19 Apr 2010 13:44

From Orbat.com, on question that why India's RAW doesnt kill Hafeez Saeed like Israel kills Hamas leasers-

My impression is that India's Research and Analysis Wing - the innocuous name given for India's CIA - would happily kill Mr. Saeed if it could. But getting assassins close enough to him would be a big problem. Look at what Israel had to go through to kill the Hamas official in the Gulf. And despite having a long arm and deep intelligence in Gaza, the Israelis couldn't nail him there. Plus the Israelis surround Gaza and keep it in lock-down. India cannot realistically reach Mr. Saeed.
The reason Israel's enemies hide is because they can be killed from the air at any time. The Israelis have advanced signal intelligence capability and an air force that has long practice in attacking urban targets with the minimum of collateral damage. Very often the Israelis target an individual vehicle. The long distances India must reach to attack Mr. Saeed is just one factor that makes the Israeli and Indian situations different. Israel has air supremacy over its adjacent neighbors and can do as it wants.
Another issue is that Israel from its birth has lived in mortal danger. It has of necessity acquired sophisticated skills needed to survive. The kind of terror LeT represents is something new to India, which is a huge country and a soft state. India's security ethos has traditionally been reactive, and the country's size enables it to absorb grievous blows which might easily destroy other countries. It is no coincidence that after after Prithvi Raj Chauhan dealt the Muslims a heavy defeat, the next time Hindu India won a war was one thousand years later. (The 1971 victory.)
Last, like it or not, the people we call Israeli are Europeans. Yes, a minority of Israelis are Arab. But the country was founded by Europeans, and Europeans to this day form the bulk of its immigrants. The Europeans are a lot more efficient at most things than are we South Asians.
Here's a small thing that might help in understanding India. I lived there from 1970-1990. Though I was born in pre-Independence India, I do not have a birth certificate. Until I purchased a motorcycle in 1984, I had not one single piece of identification except my passport, which obviously I never carried. Even after I got the motorcycle, I never carried the license. I did not even have a wallet, and simply carried my money in my pocket. In Delhi I didn't carry my house key wither. I left it on top the front door lintel, where anyone in the street or adjoining houses could see. I believe my situation was no different from 90% of the population. The relaxed nature of life in India is, of course, what made India an enormously appealing and pleasant place in which to live. In America, not a single person can escape being tracked several times a day. In the UK, because of their reliance on street cameras, it's a lot worse.
Before India can reach the level of Israel in matters of internal security, it has to undergo decades of learning to live in a security conscious environment. That applies also to the efficient and timely dispatch of India's enemies.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 19 Apr 2010 21:47

Philip wrote:I don't think that it was so.There was a genuine change in the world order with the "end of empire".Nations across Asia,Africa and the Americas were infused with a new vitality as they became their own masters and bonded with other nations who had suffered similar experiences of the colonial era.What the west saw and admired was the sophistication of many of the leaders of these free nations,many in NAM,who had captured the imagination of their peoples and in the case of Nehru,who along with the other prominent freedom fighters,had removed the British from India non-violently.In the aftermath of WW2,with all its destruction,nations and peoples around the world were looking for another way of co-existing with their neighbours in a civilised manner.There were giants in those days in NAM.Sukarno,Nasser,Tito,Nehru,Kenyatta,Nkrumah,Nyere,Mrs.Bandaranaike-the first woman PM ever.They had huge followings in those days.

It is true that after the end of colonialism the newly independent nations had lot of following. The west simply pushed them higher and gave these third world leaders international publicity.
The image of India was still under the control of the western media. Gandhi and image of India was spread by the western media based on how they perceived India.

"Modern Times" by Paul Johnson explains how they used media on India.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 19 Apr 2010 22:33

Carl_T wrote:Certainly he had neither the skills to play the game nor did he know the rules and he has an irritating accent, but he seemed like a well meaning person who readily expressed his opinions regardless of who didn't like it. Who knows though, that is the image I have of him.

The human rights groups are not surprising as I believe that is what he worked on at the UN.

The sad part is such a high profile third generation political-leader has to step down on charges of corruption; and he must have blamed political-corruption for everything throughout his career in international circles.

That is why I call it intellectual corruption; something his mentor in GOI demonstrates too frequently.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 20 Apr 2010 22:27

BJP dubs foreign policy as hazy, directionless
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bj ... ss_1373588

PTITuesday, April 20, 2010 17:41 IST
New Delhi: Slamming government's foreign policy as "hazy and directionless", BJP today said India cannot become a super power by "riding piggy back" on the US and wondered why efforts were not being made to counter China's attempts to attain dominance in South Asia.

Initiating the debate in the Lok Sabha on the Demand for Grant, Murli Manohar Joshi (BJP) attacked the government for its "surrendering" to the US pressure and even toeing its line on several issues.

He picked holes in the foreign policy, saying, "It is hazy, directionless and without clarity."

Joshi said the US would not come to the aid of India in times of war, as its interests were with Pakistan in its fight against terrorism.

Noting that the US was militarily helping Pakistan with weapons that were targeted against India, Joshi criticised the American stand of having "shared interest" with Pakistan.

"By riding piggyback on the US, we cannot become a global power. We have to accumulate economic and military strength to become a global power.

"It is wrong to say we can become a power with just economic growth. It should be married with military strength too. If economic power is not co-related with military power, we cannot become a super power," he said.

Expressing concern over growing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean region, Joshi said Beijing was helping India's neighbours to build ports, be it in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka.

"China is helping Pakistan in building the Gwadar port, apart from providing military aid. It is also helping Bangladesh in Chittagong port and Sri Lanka in Hambantotta port. India had, on the other hand, refused to help Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in their efforts.

"We have to focus on our neighbourhood to counter China's growing influence in the Indian Ocean region and its efforts to establish its dominance there," Joshi said.

Noting that China's rise in the region was an emerging challenge, particularly in the wake of its close cooperation with Pakistan, he said Beijing was "making all out efforts to see to it that we do not become global power."

Referring to an article by a Chinese military think-tank on "dividing India into 25 parts", Joshi said Beijing was supporting this thought and added that arms supplies that terrorists, extremists and Naxals got were from China.

"In foreign policy, we should always be prepared for any mischief," he said.

Joshi said Tibet was an issue that India should raise frequently, pointing out that the international community would certainly support and help New Delhi in this regard.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 22 Apr 2010 00:13

Didn't know where to post:

IOL says Pramod mittal, brother of Lakshmi Mittal, owner of Global steel holdings has visited Pyongyang (NK) to buy an iron mine in Musan.

R_Kumar · Post by **R_Kumar** » 22 Apr 2010 02:11

India's international unease

Unlike China, India is finding it difficult to adapt to its status as an emerging 'Great Power' looked upon favourably by the west

Dominique Moisi
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 18 April 2010 17.00 BST

Some countries are naturally at ease with the concept and the reality of strategic power. ……………….. India is clearly in a different category. ……………………

in order to understand India's political and diplomatic relationship with the outside world, the most enlightening comparison is with America in 1920. Like the US after the first world war, India is realising that its status and role in the world have been deeply transformed in the last two decades. And, like America then, India is not naturally at ease with the notion of exercising global power. ……………….

India's unease about strategic power, and its resemblance to a gigantic European Union united only by the English language, reflects its ongoing search for a new international identity. In this quest, India is impaired by its lack of practice in the exercise of power on a grand scale. It is not about to become a second China – it lacks both the means and the ambition. That is a further reason for the west to engage and invest in India.

Guardian

You will have to agree with him for most of the points but India is not united because of language(English). Its united because of Hinduism and what about this

India's history and culture, from Asoka, its mythical emperor in the third century BC

Since when Ashoka became mythical? Looks like every one wants us to start our history from Mugal invasion. I know I am digressing from the thread but couldn't stop myself.

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 Apr 2010 16:06

Results of the BBC World Service Poll conducted by PIPA of nearly 30,000 people in 28 countries who were interviewed between November 2009 and February 2010.

Provides modest satisfaction regarding the world's view of our influence for good:

India

Worldwide, views of India lean only modestly to the positive, barely edging out views of China. Among 27 countries polled, 15 are positive about India‘s influence in world affairs, ten are negative and two are divided. On average, among 27 countries, 36 per cent are positive and 31 per cent negative about India‘s influence. A high 33 per cent do not provide an answer or are neutral.

Among the tracking countries negative views have dropped by four points, but positive views have also dropped by two points, suggesting little net gain.

While views of India were fairly negative in Europe in 2009 there has been something of a warming trend. Among the French, positive views have grown by nine points (now 38%, up from 29%). Germans‘ favourable perceptions have increased by ten points (now 32%, up from 22%). Among Portuguese, negative attitudes have fallen by 11 points (now 35%, down from 46%). But in all three cases, views are still predominantly negative. Italians‘ unfavourable views have fallen by nine points (now 34%, down from 43%), shifting them from a divided view in 2009 to leaning positive in 2010.

There has been a distinct cooling with its counterpart, China. While in 2009 views were divided there, Chinese favourable views have fallen by 15 points, so that negative views (47%) now strongly outweigh positive ones (29%). China together with Pakistan (48% have negative views) have the most negative views of India, followed by Germany (46%).

However positive views are up in its other large neighbour, Indonesia (now 50%, from 38%). Filipinos have also warmed a bit with negative feelings decreasing by eight points (45%, down from 53%), but they still largely outweigh positive feelings (28%).

In the USA negative views are down by eight points (now 18%, from 26%) and a robust 55% say they have positive views of India. South Korea is the only country with a larger percentage (56%) saying that they see India having a positive influence.

Ghanaians views have had a sharp downturn with positive views decreasing by 24 points (now 33%, from 57%). Australians have also cooled with positive views dropping from 53 to 44 per cent. But in both cases positive views continue to prevail.

In Central America, unfavourable perceptions have increased by nine points (42%, up from 33%) and is the dominant position.

The above text is accompanied by a table and can be read on page marked 12 at the below link. Poll findings regarding PR China are on page marked 07 and regards the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are on page marked 11:

BBC Poll

Amended. Link corrected. Thank you for pointing it out in the other thread Amber G:.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Apr 2010 22:54

arun wrote: In Central America, unfavourable perceptions have increased by nine points (42%, up from 33%) and is the dominant position.

What have we done to Central America for them to think like this?