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.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by svinayak »

The author seems to be naive in terms of Indian history and geography.
India is a neighbor of ASEAN with close cooperation with almost all the countries.
They have invited India for security of South China Seas. The only thing is India has less trade with these countries and it was designed in such a way to create problems in Asia.

India will have to increase trade with ASEAN countries through the land route so that there is large goodwill with the people.
India, on the other hand, has aligned itself with countries where it appears to have more to gain than lose (Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, among others). India also appears to be making more headway than China in the battle for hearts and minds, which bodes well for the long-term future of Indian relations throughout the region. This suggests that India has the upper hand in the medium-term. However, while China's rise has been met with suspicion and in some cases alarm, it remains many Asian countries' largest trade partner, donor, and source of investment.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25382
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by SSridhar »

svinayak, I find nothing wrong with that assessment.

Of course, India is a close neighbour of ASEAN countries and more so, our cultural influence among these countries (except the Philippines) is very significant and for a millennia or even more in some cases. There is significant presence of Indian origin population in these countries too (except the Philippines). However, so has been China. We have made significant mistakes in the past through our neglect of them after Independence. For example, we refused membership of ASEAN when it was offered and then had to claw our way into it with great effort and yet we are not there among the ASEAN Plus Three (only China, Japan & South Korea). ASEAN is not going to make it ASEAN Plus Four any time soon. We are there only in the East Asia Summit membership & the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by svinayak »

Will reply in detail in GDF
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ramana »

X-post...
SwamyG wrote:http://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/nat ... 27435.html
The three island-nation trip that took Prime Minister Modi to Seychelles, Mauritius and Sri Lanka in mid-March may well mark the beginning of India's long-overdue maritime awakening. For a nation so richly endowed with a distinctive maritime geography, the paradox has been the tenacious indifference, often veering towards inexcusable sea-blindness, that has characterised Delhi's policy orientation as regards the Indian Ocean.

However, the very fact that Modi embarked upon such a trip to three strategically important island states in the Indian Ocean which have been long neglected by way of a summit visit reflects a political determination that has the potential to become the beginning of the end of this self-inflicted strategic myopia.

Its not myopia but willful self blinding by MMS govt. A reverse Gandhari mode.


Soniaji could not become PM so she put MMS as PM who blinded himself a la Gandhari and misled the nation.
He also surrounded himself with deluded do-nothing officials and National Insecurity Advisers.
They all were eminent people but when in office they did nothing to advance India. Just let it stagnate while the world moved on. That itself is the treachery.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Karan M »

If they just stagnated it would be one thing. Ba$tards willingly coordinated and cooperated with all the scumbags out there to work on programs to accelerate conversions, conduct massive scams, reduce India's image and compromise India's national defence. Modi and BJP have inherited an empty treasury, a sold out and treasonous media, compromised bureaucracy, demoralized scientific establishment, an armed forces grappling with serviceability and modernization challenges and limited inventory plus a large number of antiIndian interests freely roaming across and influencing Indians to destabilize the Govt. Add pathetic infrastructure and almost completely missing delivery mechanism to the list and Modi is supposed to fix all this in one year.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ShauryaT »

Holdover Foreign Policy
Holdover Foreign Policy

Earlier in the year, the Pakistani columnist Ayaz Amir voiced the futility, apropos prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to get imaginative policies out of the advisers around him, of churning butter from water. A similar problem may be affecting prime minister Narendra Modi’s foreign policy. Certainly, there is new direction to policy, such as in pacifying neighbours (Pakistan, Sri Lanka) and, importantly, in departing from the calcified thinking of the ministry of external affairs (MEA) that divorces diplomacy from military power. An example of the latter is the move to establish a forward Indian presence in the surrounding ocean, to begin with in the Agaléga Islands of Mauritius and in Seychelles, something long advocated by this analyst.

These innovations happened because Modi has relied mainly on his instincts. The PM’s setting himself up as the fount of all policy ideas explains the wariness of his cowed cabinet colleagues who refuse to take initiative for fear of falling afoul of his views. The PM thus saddled with too many policy areas to manage is unable to do justice to any of them, whence the many missteps by the BJP government.But such a system depends principally on the quality of the PM’s advisers and, even more, on the quality of advice rendered. So far there’s no evidence of any “brain trust” of realpolitik-minded outside specialists in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) ideologically in sync with the BJP. Indeed, there isn’t even a hint of existing structures being utilised in a meaningful way with many statutory bodies, such as the National Security Advisory Board manned by Manmohan Singh’s nominees, for instance, remaining un-reconstituted and high-flying economic advisers appointed with much fanfare feeling ignored.

The trouble is this is not a self-sustaining system of policymaking. The last time such a system prevailed was in Jawaharlal Nehru’s halcyon decade of the Fifties when the MEA acted on the premise, candidly recalled by former foreign secretary Jagat Mehta, that “Panditji knows best”. That episode ended in the Chinese Premier Zhouenlai politically eclipsing Nehru at the First Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung in 1955 and, seven years later, in China militarily humiliating India.

The era of one-man bands in the policy arena is long since gone. Except the prime ministers who succeeded Nehru went the other way, leaving any issue even remotely pertaining to foreign countries for the MEA to tackle immeasurably expanding its operational space. In the new millennium, the Westphalian order of sovereign states has grown more complex. Endemic intra-state turmoil and instability, permeable borders, technological advances, active social networks, and proliferation of non-state actors have upset the systemic certainties of the latter half of the 21st century. Specialist knowledge, technical acumen, and domain expertise are now the bread and butter of foreign policymaking. Absent such strengths in the MEA peopled by generalists and Modi’s unwillingness to trust in non-careerist policy counsellors, Indian foreign and military policies have tended naturally to stick to old policy lines justified in terms of continuity. Thus, the PM’s desire for close relations with the United States, for instance, was translated by MEA honchos into the nuclear “breakthrough” justified by tracing its origins to the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership obtained by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee regime.

The bureaucrats in the MEA, as in the rest of government, can at best implement policies. But they are happy to expropriate the policymaking role if allowed to do so. The result is a dearth of strategically agile national security policy options for the PM to ponder. While Modi from time to time calls in outside experts for consultation, these are episodic events, not everyday fare. It has left MEA officials free to insinuate themselves into the policymaking space the PM had carved out as his own by keeling over on the side it believes Modi is inclined.

This was evident in why no dialogue was initiated with Pakistan before Barack Obama advised this course of action, thereby according the US the go-between role it craves. It projected the impression of an India bending to Washington’s will, an image reinforced by the nuclear understanding, perhaps motivated by “professional” advice to Modi that a bad deal is better than no deal. It has confounded an already awful situation. It is doubtful whether Modi was advised about the negatives of this agreement, considering that the very persons and bureaucratic interests responsible for the 2008 nuclear deal, which achieved for the US its goal of “capping and freezing” India’s nuclear weapons capability—science and technology adviser to the PM, Dr R Chidambaram, the MEA, and Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd., also gunned for this nuclear compromise that violates Indian law—the Civilian Nuclear Damage Liability Act 2010. Assuming it withstands legal scrutiny, the disastrous consequences—the indigenous nuclear industry going into a tailspin, the burial of the 3-stage Bhabha Plan for energy independence based on Indian thorium reserves, and the commensurate revival and enrichment of the American, French and Russian nuclear industries—seem to be no one’s concerns, nor the fact that the promise of “63,000MW by 2032” is so much hot air.

But bending over backwards to accommodate the US makes little sense at a time when India’s leverage is waxing. Russia, post-Crimean annexation, has rediscovered its mojo, China has grown surer about realising its hegemonic plans, states on the Chinese periphery daily become more anxious, and the US is backsliding, desperately wanting regional heavyweights, like India, to join it in shoring up the status quo. These are circumstances tailor-made to enhance India’s strategic worth as balancer with respect to the US-China, China-littoral/offshore Asian states, and US-Russia tussles.

As a self-confessed Gujarati with an eye for opportunity and profit, it is surprising Modi did not capitalise on this situation to recover lost ground by rejecting the Establishment advice and sidelining the original nuclear deal, and extracting a high cost from Washington for an ambiguous promise of partnering it. So once again India is in the familiar position of supplicant. Modi surely did not want this but it is something he is unwittingly realising by relying primarily on serving and retired civil servants.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13526
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by A_Gupta »

Not sure where this news-item belongs.
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 576_1.html
Two Lok Sabha members have been unanimously elected to two standing committees of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), an international organisation of Parliaments.

Led by Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, the Indian parliamentary delegation, attending the 132nd Assembly of IPU being held in Hanoi in Vietnam, proposed the names of Raj Kumar Singh and Nagendra Singh for the Standing Committee on Peace and International Security and the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development, Finance and Trade, respectively.
Why are these important? Hundreds of these small official ties are what make for effective working relationships with other countries. I think BRFers need to be aware of these.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by RamaY »

Indeed, there isn’t even a hint of existing structures being utilised in a meaningful way with many statutory bodies, such as the National Security Advisory Board manned by Manmohan Singh’s nominees, for instance, remaining un-reconstituted and high-flying economic advisers appointed with much fanfare feeling ignored.
:rotfl:
A sepoy cries out loud saying current PM is making his own foreign policy, without consulting the previous PMO nominated NSA. Somehow MMS was right in making his own team, but Modi is wrong in making his own team (even if it just him).

Nowadays intellectuals are those who have access to news papers and get their articles published.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Rahul M »

A_Gupta ji, just taking this opportunity to thank you for your wonderful effort in collating articles about our foreign policy initiatives.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ramana »

And all others too. Please keep it going so we are informed.

Thanks,

ramana
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5405
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ShauryaT »

Good intent not withstanding, something is missing in Modi's approaches to provoke articles like these. Modi seems unwilling or unable to bring change to the structures of governance - especially where fundamental changes are required leading to key transformations. Vajpayee tenure tried, succeeded in some and failed in some but they did try and I for one was very impressed. I hope Modi can surpass the Valpayee record, given his majority. The nation is waiting.
Summiting with Purpose
After the fiasco of the “Savile Row” suit at his “chai pe charcha” with president Barack Obama, prime minister Narendra Modi learned, at some cost to his personal reputation, the need to dress austerely. As regards the more serious side of summiting, his attempt to explain frequent travels abroad as pro forma, necessitated by foreign policy imperatives, however, suggests that in accepting a “continuity” agenda set by the vested interests in government led by leading sections within the ministry of external affairs (MEA), he has yet to fully grasp the fact that the value of high-level meets lies in the substantive benefits extracted from host countries, not in lavish Indian giveaways to win short-term goodwill, which is the Dummy’s way to make a personal splash at the nation’s expense, and has been the norm since the turn of the century.

Too often in the last decade, nationalist-minded Indians have had their fingers crossed and hearts in their mouths every time Indian prime ministers sallied forth to foreign lands, or entertained their counterparts in Delhi, because the outcomes invariably involved the commitment of scarce national resources to securing wrong things, and/or the compromising of national interest by surrendering foreign, economic, and military policy options. Hopefully, Modi will not, in his upcoming trips starting April 9 to France, Germany, and Canada, deepen the mistakes already made.

A contract for the unaffordable French Rafale, entirely superfluous to the Indian Air Force’s requirements, for instance, will stifle the Indian Tejas and advanced combat aircraft projects, and an agreement for Areva nuclear reactors, facilitated by the 2008 nuclear deal with the US, as with other such purchases, by confirming the nuclear testing moratorium freeze Indian thermonuclear weapons at the failed-design stage, and create an energy dependency by denying funds for the Indian breeder and thorium reactor development promising energy self-sufficiency just so exorbitantly-priced imported reactors run on imported fuel, the supply of which can be terminated at any time, can be bought.

Modi had the opportunity to seriously rethink the issues involved and chart a new course. Instead, if the nuclear “breakthrough” with Obama is any guide, he chose to follow the MEA line hewing to the supplier country dictates. Thus relations with France, for instance, is thought of as depending on the Rafale contract being signed and on the approval of the sale of Areva reactors, which are plagued by problems of enormous cost and time over-runs wherever these are being erected (such as in Olkiluoto in Finland). Besides, astonishingly, inverting the traditional buyer-seller relationship where the buyer has the upper hand, it puts the onus of failure on India for not meeting relationship benchmarks set by Paris that is desperate to sell!

It makes one wonder how India got to this pass. Why it is that New Delhi seems determined to expend scarce monies on high-value foreign products of doubtful utility amounting to a criminal waste of national resources? And, more importantly, whether the Indian government even knows what’s good for the country?

If, as Modi has tweeted, this trip is centred on boosting the Indian economy and “creating jobs” for the youth, he cannot do better than ask especially the Angela Merkel dispensation in Germany, and secondarily France, to materially assist in establishing the “mittelstand” here. Mittelstand is the network of small and medium-sized, often family-owned, engineering enterprises and workshops that prosper by continually producing specialised, high-quality engineering goods, and are the bedrock of the high-technology sectors (aerospace, automobile, etc.) in these countries. New technologies thus produced are incorporated by big corporations into their designs for major hardware. Mittelstand also has been the engine of the German economy 1900 onwards, employing over 70 per cent of the workforce, responsible for over 82 per cent of the country’s vaunted apprenticeship programme for skill-building, and accounting for over 60 per cent of its economic output. It has proved so successful France copied it. If mittelstand is not on his list of “talking points” provided him by MEA, the prime minister should put it there.

He should explore in Berlin how the mittelstand concept can be replicated in this country and what programmes and projects Germany can get underway to achieve this aim. And, rather than sign fly-blown contracts for the Rafale aircraft of dubious merit and for the equally suspect nuclear reactors that will deprive the indigenous aerospace and nuclear programmes of much needed funding, Modi must ask Paris for pointers on how it converted the German mittelstand to fit French conditions, and what lessons India can draw from that experience. Modi ought to make support for rooting this economic-industrial set-up in India the metric for judging future relations with these two countries.

Indians, man for skilled man, are as inventive and productive as their US and European counterparts, as the record of Western companies in Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, and elsewhere using Indian talent to produce exceptional technological innovations, patents, and profit for these companies, shows. The trouble is the traditionally statist-oriented Indian government has shied away from providing its own people and industry the enabling environment that puts a premium on growing technology. The same results can be obtained here by trusting in and incentivising Indian engineering and entrepreneurial talent. But first, it will require the BJP government to renounce the easy import option. As the Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya’álon said in Delhi recently apropos of his country’s success in the military technology sphere, “Having no choice is the best incentive.”

Modi should focus on the ways and means by which small and medium enterprises can be technology germinators and innovators, and generate wealth and employment with or without direct German and French inputs. And, whilst in Canada, rather than get hung up on a “nuclear deal”, he should prod the Bombardier Company, say, into setting up production line and R&D unit here to produce technologically advanced rolling stock for export and to meet the elevated/underground metrorail needs of prodigiously growing Indian cities.

Modi can talk up India alright. Time is nigh he ensured his jaunts abroad helped root an Indian mittelstand as the cutting edge of an “innovation economy” at home.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20844
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Karan M »

A great article by Karnad.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Kakkaji »

In Thai bonhomie, taming of China jitters
New Delhi, April 3: Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sent national security adviser Ajit Doval on a little-publicised but key visit to Thailand, signalling an end to India's twin UPA-era ambivalences on joining multi-nation naval exercises in China's backyard and on the region's military regimes.

Doval is the highest-ranking Indian government representative to visit Thailand since the May 2014 coup against then Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra by army general Prayut Chan-ocha, now the Prime Minister. Doval met Prayut on April 1.

The visit comes a month after India joined Cobra Gold, the largest multi-lateral military exercises in the Asia Pacific region, with an enhanced "observer plus" status for the first time, senior officials have confirmed to The Telegraph.

But India's decision to accept Thailand's invitation for an enhanced role in Cobra Gold, and Doval's visit, are also emblematic of a quiet shift Modi has undertaken since coming to power.

"This is a definite break from the past," an official said. "It was unthinkable two years ago."

Although most East and South East Asian nations have over the past three years repeatedly pressed India to adopt a more assertive role in the Asia Pacific region, the UPA government had been reluctant, afraid of annoying China.

After China twice objected to India participating in multilateral exercises in the Pacific involving the US and Japan, the UPA government effectively decided to shun multi-nation military exercises that Beijing worried were aimed at circling it. Instead, India focused on bilateral exercises.

When, in the summer of 2014, Thailand invited India to participate in an enhanced capacity in the 2015 Cobra Gold, the government had changed. But the answer took time coming as the invite gathered dust in the defence ministry.

But the signals had changed from the UPA's time. In September, when Modi visited Washington, India agreed to include, in his joint statement with US President Barack Obama, references to tensions in the South China Sea.

China is locked in disputes with multiple East and South East Asian nations over maritime waters, atolls and islands in the South China Sea, but India had till then been cautious in its response, aware of Beijing's fears of a New Delhi-Washington-Tokyo alliance against it.

The September signal was followed by the declaration of a shared India-US Asia Pacific vision during Obama's January India visit, marking even clearer intentions by the Modi government to play an assertive role in the region. The clincher came with the acceptance of Thailand's invitation.

The Modi government has also tried to underscore to the military leaders ruling key countries that it has no inhibitions about doing business with them - a pragmatic approach rooted in lessons learned from past experiences.

In country after country with military rulers, decisions by democracies like the US - and India in some cases - to pull back on ties or impose sanctions have only helped China slide into the vacant space created as a result, offering loans, grants and geopolitical patronage.


Aware of that history, Modi met Prayut in Nay Pyi Taw during the East Asia Summit last November and promised to ensure that ties didn't sag.

Prayut committed recently to holding democratic elections in early 2016, and Modi could have waited till then to send a senior representative to Thailand.

In sending Doval now, Modi has told Thailand's military rulers he is just as comfortable with them as with a democratically elected leader.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Tuvaluan »

Maybe the MEA is not devious as it is risk averse -- they are good at following orders, but if the leader is a dimwitted loser like Manmohan Singh who takes his orders from an illiterate waitress, then the civil services take the path of least risk...understandable really. Politicians are supposed to lead and the civil services are supposed to follow the lead, and that is how it is all supposed to work. This is not to say that they may not have their own cliquish interests of their civil service clan that outweighs the concerns of the political parties or the Indian public.
Last edited by Tuvaluan on 04 Apr 2015 06:42, edited 1 time in total.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Kakkaji »

NaMo does need to reconstitute the National Security Advisory Board. He would get more input and help in addition to Doval, who is overworked IMHO.

The one weakness I have noticed in NaMo so far is that he relies on a few key people, e.g. Arun Jaitley and Ajit Doval, and then overloads them. He needs to broaden his support structure by bringing in more good people into his circle.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Tuvaluan »

Some people are just special, like MAD. Their replacements need to be able to learn from them on the job. No better way. Redundancy in competence is key to a failure-proof system. Doval is brilliant enough to understand that the key to high security in a high-tech world is to go low-tech -- that kind of counterintuitive thinking comes from years of experience and a lot of imagination.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Kakkaji »

Panchsheel gives way to Panchamrit - New pillars of foreign policy
Bangalore, April 3: India made way for Bharat and Jawaharlal Nehru's Panchsheel for Narendra Modi's Panchamrit in the resolution on foreign policy adopted by the BJP's national executive this evening.

The four-page resolution, drafted by general secretary Ram Madhav and moved by Union minister M. Venkaiah Naidu, did not once use the word India. It was Bharat from start to end. The document was titled: Our national ambition is Bharat's rise as a strong and respected world power.

In keeping with the BJP's partiality to alliteration, the resolution began with listing the five cornerstones of the foreign policy as " samman" (dignity), "samvad" (dialogue), " samriddhi" (shared prosperity), "suraksha" (regional and global security) and " sanskriti evam sabhayata" (cultural and civilisational links).

"These five themes have become the Panchamrit, the new pillars of our foreign policy," it stated.

India's foreign policy so far has drawn from the doctrine of Panchsheel, enunciated by Jawaharlal Nehru. Its five principles were mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.

Panchsheel was formally codified into a treaty that was signed in 1954 between India and China.

While Panchsheel approached foreign relations largely in a spirit of pacifism, Panchamrit is founded on an assumption that India is second to none in the global arena and can hold its own against others.

"The government has moved with speed and resolve on a scale rarely seen in our external engagement, to restore Bharat's position in international affairs, rebuild partnerships across the board and cross new frontiers in our foreign relations," the resolution stated.

It claimed the NDA government had on its own, "without being influenced by any third country", made the "geo-politics of hyphenation" irrelevant. In other words, it said, the world no longer couples India with Pakistan. "Our engagement has been characterised by independence of thought and action, and self-confidence that comes from our heritage and draws strength from it," the resolution claimed.

The Prime Minister's and the foreign minister Sushma Swaraj's engagement with 94 countries in 10 months proved there was "optimism about Bharat's emergence as an anchor of the global economy and as a leader in advancing peace and prosperity across the world", the resolution said.

India was described as the "pole star" ( dhruv tara) of the "democratic world". "Prime Minister Modi's strong belief in the shared future of our neighbourhood - 'Together we grow' - has resulted in several concrete measures that renewed that promise. The invitation to leaders of Saarc nations and Mauritius for the swearing-in ceremony of the new government was the first move," it said.

Given the feel-good tone of the document, it was no surprise there was no mention of Sri Lanka's tough line against Indian fishermen or the intrusions across the Line of Control with Pakistan, which have been higher in the past year than in the previous five years of UPA rule. Issues that await resolution with Bangladesh, such as the land boundary agreement or Teesta water-sharing, also did not find a place.

On Pakistan, the resolution iterated the official policy of "no compromise with terrorism" and engagement "only on such terms that reflect its (India's) national security and strategic interests".

On Modi's equation with the US, it said: "We have restored momentum in our strategic partnership with the US. Once described by Prime Minister Vajpayee as 'natural allies', the two countries had lapsed into a considerably slowed-down relationship in the last 10 years. Our Prime Minister's initiatives, coupled with President Obama's positive overtures, have led to a new energy in Bharat-US relations."
Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3801
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Paul »

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

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Tuvaluan »

Is there no one in dip. corps who knows Dhihevi (maldives)? Is there no diplomatic presence there?
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by svinayak »

RamaY wrote:
Indeed, there isn’t even a hint of existing structures being utilised in a meaningful way with many statutory bodies, such as the National Security Advisory Board manned by Manmohan Singh’s nominees, for instance, remaining un-reconstituted and high-flying economic advisers appointed with much fanfare feeling ignored.
:rotfl:
A sepoy cries out loud saying current PM is making his own foreign policy, without consulting the previous PMO nominated NSA. Somehow MMS was right in making his own team, but Modi is wrong in making his own team (even if it just him).

Nowadays intellectuals are those who have access to news papers and get their articles published.
Continuity in policy must be shown so that major powers see a consistency and credibility from Indian govt.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by svinayak »

Kakkaji wrote:NaMo does need to reconstitute the National Security Advisory Board. He would get more input and help in addition to Doval, who is overworked IMHO.

The one weakness I have noticed in NaMo so far is that he relies on a few key people, e.g. Arun Jaitley and Ajit Doval, and then overloads them. He needs to broaden his support structure by bringing in more good people into his circle.
There is in the govt BJP MPs think tank on all areas including foreign affairs. Check some of the MP. One of them is from Harvard.

There was an article in the India-US thread talking about what would PM Modi think about various countries and foreign relations. Entire thinking of the govt is done by MPs and not by PM Modi alone.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by RamaY »

svinayak wrote:Continuity in policy must be shown so that major powers see a consistency and credibility from Indian govt.
What is MMS policy that is in Indian Interests?

We should have continued with British rule so we would have had good consistency and credibility.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by svinayak »

RamaY wrote:
svinayak wrote:Continuity in policy must be shown so that major powers see a consistency and credibility from Indian govt.
What is MMS policy that is in Indian Interests?

We should have continued with British rule so we would have had good consistency and credibility.
INC follows the Nehruvian policy more or less and most of the previous govt have follwed it.

Now BJP has announced a new policy building new relations with the rest of the world. It will evolve into a new policy for the 21 century which will be carried over for another 50 years. There needs to be long term strategy for peacetime.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by RamaY »

Yep, time to define our Foreign Policy based our national interests. For that we need to know what our nation is. That is a philosophical question.

The policy is being redefined and future Bharat will be built on top of Modi policy. Naturally this will disrupt the old policy. That proves my point that the above cry of Sepoy is just that.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ramana »

Paul or anyone can the list be sorted on the number and not alphabetical order? It will show where IFS has to put more emphasis in future. And helps align the new policy.

At cursory glance its Eurocentric with a large number of Russian, German and French speakers.
Spanish is Ok as Latin & Central America covers a lot of area.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5619
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by RoyG »

Kakkaji wrote:Panchsheel gives way to Panchamrit - New pillars of foreign policy
Bangalore, April 3: India made way for Bharat and Jawaharlal Nehru's Panchsheel for Narendra Modi's Panchamrit in the resolution on foreign policy adopted by the BJP's national executive this evening.

The four-page resolution, drafted by general secretary Ram Madhav and moved by Union minister M. Venkaiah Naidu, did not once use the word India. It was Bharat from start to end. The document was titled: Our national ambition is Bharat's rise as a strong and respected world power.

In keeping with the BJP's partiality to alliteration, the resolution began with listing the five cornerstones of the foreign policy as " samman" (dignity), "samvad" (dialogue), " samriddhi" (shared prosperity), "suraksha" (regional and global security) and " sanskriti evam sabhayata" (cultural and civilisational links).

"These five themes have become the Panchamrit, the new pillars of our foreign policy," it stated.

India's foreign policy so far has drawn from the doctrine of Panchsheel, enunciated by Jawaharlal Nehru. Its five principles were mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.

Panchsheel was formally codified into a treaty that was signed in 1954 between India and China.

While Panchsheel approached foreign relations largely in a spirit of pacifism, Panchamrit is founded on an assumption that India is second to none in the global arena and can hold its own against others.

"The government has moved with speed and resolve on a scale rarely seen in our external engagement, to restore Bharat's position in international affairs, rebuild partnerships across the board and cross new frontiers in our foreign relations," the resolution stated.

It claimed the NDA government had on its own, "without being influenced by any third country", made the "geo-politics of hyphenation" irrelevant. In other words, it said, the world no longer couples India with Pakistan. "Our engagement has been characterised by independence of thought and action, and self-confidence that comes from our heritage and draws strength from it," the resolution claimed.

The Prime Minister's and the foreign minister Sushma Swaraj's engagement with 94 countries in 10 months proved there was "optimism about Bharat's emergence as an anchor of the global economy and as a leader in advancing peace and prosperity across the world", the resolution said.

India was described as the "pole star" ( dhruv tara) of the "democratic world". "Prime Minister Modi's strong belief in the shared future of our neighbourhood - 'Together we grow' - has resulted in several concrete measures that renewed that promise. The invitation to leaders of Saarc nations and Mauritius for the swearing-in ceremony of the new government was the first move," it said.

Given the feel-good tone of the document, it was no surprise there was no mention of Sri Lanka's tough line against Indian fishermen or the intrusions across the Line of Control with Pakistan, which have been higher in the past year than in the previous five years of UPA rule. Issues that await resolution with Bangladesh, such as the land boundary agreement or Teesta water-sharing, also did not find a place.

On Pakistan, the resolution iterated the official policy of "no compromise with terrorism" and engagement "only on such terms that reflect its (India's) national security and strategic interests".

On Modi's equation with the US, it said: "We have restored momentum in our strategic partnership with the US. Once described by Prime Minister Vajpayee as 'natural allies', the two countries had lapsed into a considerably slowed-down relationship in the last 10 years. Our Prime Minister's initiatives, coupled with President Obama's positive overtures, have led to a new energy in Bharat-US relations."
Nice Find. Impressed with the direction and the use of Bharat. Dropping India/Indian should be our long term agenda.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13745
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vayutuvan »

ramana wrote:Paul or anyone can the list be sorted on the number and not alphabetical order?
ramana: Here is CSV sorted by numbers in ascending order. .I dispensed with other niceties like capitalization etc. Since it is cvs text, it can be imported into spreadsheet and further sliced and diced.

00,dutch
00,thai
01,dzhongka
01,italian
01,kazakh
01,serbo-craotian
01,ukrainian
02,bahasa malay
02,nepalese
02,pushtu
03,vietnamese
04,korean
04,sinhalese
05,burmese
06,hebrew
06,kiswahili
07,turkish
10,bahasa indonesia
18,persian
20,japanese
20,portuguese
31,german
67,chinese
68,spanish
73,french
83,russian
98,arabic
member_28442
BRFite
Posts: 607
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by member_28442 »

just 1 person speaks italian?
strange
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ramana »

They have Soniaji Desh ka Bahu!
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7143
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by JE Menon »

does not have to be either or... Nothing wrong with keeping India too. If Greece and Hellas can coexist, no reason for India and Bharat not to.
Also we don't want anyone else to appropriate it.
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13745
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vayutuvan »

SSharma wrote:just 1 person speaks italian?
strange
That was my first thought followed by what ramana said which implies Mr. Rahul Gandhi does not speak Italian. On the other hand, it could be that Sonia ji speaks English, Latin, and may be Hindi. Mr. RG speaks English (of course), Italian, Burmese :wink:, and bollyindi (TM vAyutUvan) "jab love hOga tO joy sE jump karEga" (TM sanjaykumar).
Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10540
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Yagnasri »

Pappu may also be speaking Thai. One can learn something in sixty days to close intimacy in Pattayya. :mrgreen:
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by schinnas »

Heartening to see so many with Chinese and Japanese skills. We need many more with expertise in Thai and Malay to propel Act East policy in the ground.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by svinayak »

For a large country like India the number should be 10 times this
deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4024
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by deejay »

^^^ These are only IFS nos. All employed in foreign embassies are not IFS's alone.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13526
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by A_Gupta »

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/pud ... 128642.ece
Three-day national seminar on at Pondicherry University

Eminent scholars and diplomats in international studies across the country scrutinise the recent neighbourhood-centric foreign policy moves of India at a three-day national seminar that began on Monday at Pondicherry University.

The seminar on ‘Neighbourhood Initiatives of the Modi Government: Challenges and Road Ahead’ witnesses diplomats and scholars holding forth their views on the subject.

Emeritus Professor S.D. Muni, India’s former Ambassador to Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Special Envoy to Southeast Asian countries on U.N Security Council Reforms, praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for having the vision to change the course of the country’s foreign affairs. Even as he focused on China’s growing power and its effect on India- China relation, he highlighted the influence of India on its neighbours’ internal politics.

Former Ambassador Jayant Prasad emphasised Modi’s pragmatic vision of India’s neighbourhood policy. Focusing on India’s position in the “big picture” of the world, especially with reference to the Make in India drive, he also drew further attention to the role of North-Eastern States in building up India’s relation especially with Bangladesh and Myanmar.

In her presidential address, Vice-Chancellor of Pondicherry University Chandra Krishnamurty, focused on the importance of managing good relations with the neighbouring countries and also appreciated the policy initiatives aimed at putting India’s neighbours as top priority.

Prof. Nalini Kant Jha, Director UGC Centre for Southern Asia Studies and Dean, School of Social Sciences & International Studies, Pondicherry University, introduced the central idea of this seminar to facilitate debates and discussions on the neighbourhood initiatives of Modi Government in past one year along with the challenges and future perspective. The national seminar was divided into seven sessions of paper presentations, which included discussion on the challenges and perspective to build up India’s relation with its neighbouring nations such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Maldives, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka.

The seminar was organised by the University Grants Commission Centre for Southern Asia Studies, Pondicherry University in collaboration with Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies, Kolkata and Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Philip »

Most interesting the "Thai gambit".obviously someone in the MEA has read Lord Curzon (I will post the quote of is later on,he used the word Siam instead) and his view on India being the principal dominating power in the IOR. The "Look East" policy of India must be fleshed out in bolder and greater emphasis with "real deals",such as mil eqpt. to the ASEAN nations and Vietnam in particular.

Vietnam must be given BMos,Prithvi,Prahar,Akash, missiles .and other miscell. eqpt.,especially in the naval/maritime sphere. We are already training Viet submariners along with the Russians for their 6 new Kilo class subs and must also provide the Viets with MRP aircraft,which can monitor all PLAN warship movements in the Indo-China Sea. Whatever mil aid the Chinese give the Paksi,we must improve upon!
I also advocate giving the Taiwanese covert sub tech.In fact the Germans allegedly cheated us by providing the S.Africans during the Apartheid era the plans of our modified U-209 subs.There is nothing to stop us from providing them with the same,discreetly. Since many Asian nations are operating.building the same type,like SoKo,etc.,who is to know?

Indian diplomacy must shed its timid attitude of the past.The mantra must be "tous azimuth" (all points of the compass ) ,as a famous French general ,Charles Ailleret said.
De Gaulle’s Foreign Policy in Practice
In conducting his foreign policy De Gaulle was led by two basic principles:
 the complete independence of French foreign policy vis-à-vis the two
superpowers
 French foreign policy had a global reach
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/04/11 ... -act-east/
Why India needs to ‘act’ East
11 April 2015

Author: Tridivesh Singh Maini, Jindal School of International Affairs

Ever since former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao reshaped India’s foreign policy in the 1990s under the so-called ‘Look East’ policy India has strengthened ties with Southeast Asia. The current government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has unequivocally said that it is keen to progress from the ‘Look East’ policy to ‘Act East.’

The post-Cold War world has compelled India to reshape relations with important countries, such as the US and Japan. India’s increasing economic clout has also meant that the outside world has paid greater attention to it.

Since the 1990s, India has moved from being a sectoral partner of ASEAN to being a dialogue partner. Trade between India and ASEAN is tipped at US$76 billion (as of 2013–2014), which — while far below its potential — is up more than 20 per cent compared to a decade ago. This has been facilitated by the India–ASEAN free trade agreement (FTA) in goods. Bilateral trade is likely to increase further, with both sides setting a target of US$100 billion by this year.

In the strategic sphere too, India has strengthened ties with Vietnam and Singapore. India has been carrying out joint naval exercises with Singapore near the Andaman Islands for two decades. India signed a military agreement in 2003, which includes joint exercises and training. And in September 2014 the two countries decided to strengthen cooperation in the context of counterterrorism.

India has extensive strategic ties to Vietnam, which include interactions between defence services and assistance in the maintenance of defence equipment. During Indian President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Vietnam, a US$100 million line of credit was signed between the EXIM Bank of India and Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance, specifically for defence procurement.

India is also no longer ambivalent about its role in Southeast Asia, especially in regards to the South China Sea dispute. This was evident in Modi and US President Barack Obama’s joint statement. Modi also stated: ‘We have a shared interest in maritime security, including freedom of navigation and commerce, and peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with international law’.

India has begun to place special emphasis on Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam. It has ramped up financial aid and development assistance, and has set up a special desk at the Ministry of External Affairs. India is now assisting these countries in areas like information technology as well as English-language training.

Steps are also being taken to enhance both land and sea connectivity with Southeast Asia. Myanmar is the only gateway through land to South East Asia. A trade zone connecting Behiang in Manipur with Myanmar’s Chin province is being discussed, while a land customs station at Zawkhatar in Mizoram is also likely to be inaugurated soon. Chief ministers of north Indian states are involved as key stakeholders, not just in the context of ties with Myanmar but the overall Act East policy.

India is also seeking to build closer maritime links with Southeast Asia. The Shipping Corporation of India initiated a bi-weekly container shipping service to Myanmar in October 2014. It is likely that similar services will also be launched to Vietnam and Cambodia.

But if India wants its Act East policy to be successful it needs to take a number of further steps.

First, India must strengthen important infrastructure projects such as the trilateral highway linking India–Myanmar–Thailand and infrastructure on land borders with Myanmar.

Second, India needs to utilise its diaspora more effectively. So far, it has engaged only with the Indian diaspora in Singapore, Malaysia and to some extent Thailand. India needs to pay greater attention to the Indian community in Myanmar.

Third, there is scope for greater engagement with countries like Indonesia and the Philippines. There is immense potential for strengthening India–Indonesia relations not just due to their common past, but also due to the similar backgrounds of Modi and Indonesian President Joko Widodo, who were both strong regional leaders before becoming heads of state.

Finally, a large number of Indian states are beginning to engage with Southeast Asian countries, especially Singapore and Malaysia. While it is logical to make northeastern states key stakeholders in the Act East policy, it is also important to rekindle ties between other Indian states and ASEAN countries.

Indian cities that share a common history and heritage with countries in ASEAN can deepen relations on the basis of religious history. For instance, the Buddhist site of Sarnath near Varanasi receives a large number of tourists, many from Thailand. There are a number of sites in Madhya Pradesh such as Mahurijhari that can similarly be linked with ASEAN countries. Links between cities in states such as Kerala, which were part of the Spice route, can also be built. Already, UNESCO and the government of Kerala signed an agreement in 2014 to revive the Spice Route Project.

There is immense potential for India finally to play a greater role not just in South Asia but in Asia as a whole.


Tridivesh Singh Maini is a Senior Research Associate with the Jindal School of International Affairs, Sonepat, India.

A version of this article was first published here on Global Asia Forum.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Philip »

The promised quote from Lord Curzon:

The central position of India,its magnificdnt resources,multitude of men,its great trading harbours,its reserve of military strength...all threse are issues of precious value.On the West India must exercise a predominant influence over the destinies of Persia and Afghanistan,on the North,it can veto any rival in Tibet,on the North-east...it can exert great pressure upon China,and it is one of the guardians of the autonomous existence of Siam".


Of course India then was not partitioned and it is Pakistan which is trying to influence events in Afghanistan and the Gulf. But India's geographical position has not changed and it should still adhere to Curzon's vision,not to mention K,M.Panikkar's. Curzon's view that we should put pressure upon China from the N-East should be examined today,where our thrust towards better relations with Burma too should be factored in into at least preventing China from using Burma (and BDesh) to encircle India.
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by kmkraoind »

In a first, MEA to recruit from academics, private sector

Its a great move. It will help MEA to get new ideas and talents and at the same time, loosen the grip of IAS/IFS lobbying powers. I wish many of our BRF gurus/pandits/experts may use their knowledge and expertise for Bharath.

If age is a problem for recruiting into govt jobs, MEA can form honorary positions and should create special benches for Think-Tanks and advisory roles.
Deposing before the committee, foreign secretary S Jaishankar and other top officials of the MEA informed that for the first time in its history, the ministry will advertise for positions in its public policy division aiming at talent from the academic world and private sector.
.......
The Parliamentary standing committee on external affairs also discussedthe need for a separate UPSC examination for cadre, mid-career entry and in-service training and orientation of MEA officials.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3894
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Kakkaji »

27 diplomats abroad under government scanner
At least 27 Indian diplomats posted overseas are facing charges related to corruption, harassment and dereliction of duty over the last year, South Block sources told The Sunday Express.

Sources said that this “worrying trend” has led to concern at the top levels of the government, especially because the number of diplomats facing such charges for 2014-15 is almost thrice that of 2013-14 (10), and over four times more than in 2012-13 (6).

The latest numbers do not include the Indian envoy to New Zealand, who has been recalled to New Delhi to face a probe into allegations that his wife assaulted a member of their domestic staff.

Of the 27 facing investigation, five are in Indian missions in the UK, five in Madagascar, three each in Kazakhstan and Kenya, two each in Botswana and Mali, and one each in Afghanistan, Austria, Italy, Japan, Morocco, the Netherlands and Thailand.

Sources said the charges against these diplomats were being investigated by various committees set up by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA); some of these panels include officials from other ministries and agencies depending on the gravity of the charges.

Ever since the new NDA government has come to power, the probity of officials is being given high priority. Complaints against officials and diplomats, who are posted overseas, are taken very seriously by the MEA. The high number could be a reflection of the better responsiveness as compared to previous years,”.

Sources said that unlike earlier, the ministry now investigates anonymous complaints against Indian officials as well. However, they added that in such cases, only those charges that are found to have some merit in a preliminary probe are taken further.

Earlier, complaints against Indian embassy officials would go unheeded. But now, senior officials of the government and even the External Affairs Minister and the Prime Minister can be reached by the Indian community overseas through social media. And they pro-actively respond. This means that complaints cannot be brushed under the carpet anymore,” an official said.
This can go under the 'Achievemens' thread.
Post Reply