toucheMy thoughts exactly.Atri wrote: There has been considerable influence of concepts which happened to evolve in India on cultural and ideological sphere of China. There is nothing inferior about taking up certain ideological memes from some other place and adapt it to one's environment.
It's interesting that you think there is lack of creativity in Chinese society. Maybe it is true to certain extent currently, but historically? I put that down to ignorance. But hey. I get where you're coming from. There's plenty of Chinese that like to think they came up with East Asian culture too.RamaY wrote: It shows apparent lack of creativity in the society. If they ancient China got its philosophy from India, it got Marxism from Germany, and now economic imperialism from America.
A wise student by now would have learned that only its philosophical teacher remained strong over millennium. Everything else met their inherent demise.
Unfortunately PRC failed to be a good student too.
Depends if Pārtha's uncle is in decline, but has the wisdom and knowledge to impart.Atri wrote:To make the analogy "Indic", what is profitable - To have Yadava Army on our side OR to have krishna on our side
If Paartha becomes Ekalavya, the Dronacharyas of UNSC will definitely ask for thumb of Kashmir (or something equally vital). Whether Arjun will oblige depends largely on whether the Paartha is being guided by Yudhishthira OR Madhava..Pulikeshi wrote:Depends if Pārtha's uncle is in decline, but has the wisdom and knowledge to impart.Atri wrote:To make the analogy "Indic", what is profitable - To have Yadava Army on our side OR to have krishna on our side
Lest Pārtha become Ekalavya!
RamaY and fellow BRFites: I put up that little titbit about the Indic origins of the famed Chinese dragon myth only so that it might filed away as potential ammunition in future debates that we will be obliged to have to counter the (shoddily)manufactured history that the Chinese will continue to peddle.RamaY wrote:^ Another aspect is
It shows apparent lack of creativity in the society. If they ancient China got its philosophy from India, it got Marxism from Germany, and now economic imperialism from America.
A wise student by now would have learned that only its philosophical teacher remained strong over millennium. Everything else met their inherent demise.
Unfortunately PRC failed to be a good student too.
However he present no insights on how such a reset is constructed!
Time for reset of Indi-US ties
M.K. Bhadra Kumar
Barack Obama's visit has triggered an extraordinarily creative period in the Indian strategic thinking. How do we bring all these strands of new thinking together?
Whichever way one looks at it, there is going to be an indeterminate fatefulness when United States President Barack Obama arrives in India. Not that Mr. Obama is god or that he is an elderly bearded man wrapped in a swirling cloak with the “finger of the paternal right hand” — as in the fourth section of the Michelangelo fresco on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Nor is India Adam waiting to receive the spark of life.
The point is, in comparison with the U.S. Presidents New Delhi has welcomed in a generation or two, Mr. Obama is truly a brilliant intellectual with a view of the world imbued with the struggle of the mankind for survival, dignity and development. Fareed Zakaria tactfully described him as “a kind of practical idealist” who admired George Bush Sr.'s approach to ending the Cold War in an apparently cooperative way, with an emphasis on productive, constructive relations with the world powers. Mr. Obama is also someone instinctively wary of ideology and shrewd enough to balance the impulse of principle and the realities of politics — a master of the rhetoric of common ground.
The Indian strategic community did not seem to have got him right when it anticipated him as a crusader of “Asian democracy” — a code word for “containment” of China. Do not look beyond the joint statement issued after the third session of the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue that concluded in Washington recently. It speaks of a “strategic, comprehensive and long-term partnership” between the two countries based on “shared values, mutual respect, and mutual interests.” We may expect similar rhetoric on India, too.
Passionate moralism has never been a trait of Mr. Obama's political personality and the Indian establishment has done well to leave the rhetoric of his visit almost entirely to the able hands of American officials and instead concentrate on the hardball — “real politics,” as a top Indian policymaker candidly put it. Having said that, Mr. Obama is also a man of infinite charm with a rare capacity for cheerful impersonal friendliness who, with his gargantuan self-confidence bordering almost on hauteur, can very gracefully stoop to conquer to ease jealousies or form alliances.
One thing is absolutely certain. As the dusk gently descends on Delhi in the balmy autumn evening of November 8, Mr. Obama is destined to deliver a great speech in the hallowed Central Hall of Parliament.
{So they have an advance copy or its contours.}
Indeed, Mr. Obama's visit is going to be a fateful happening in the region's tangled history and politics. So much has changed since a U.S. President last visited India in 2005. The geopolitics of the region has changed and alongside, inevitably, the U.S.-Pakistan pivotal cooperation in the Afghan endgame has crystallised, the world has changed, India has changed, and indeed the trajectory of the U.S. and India's expectations and aspirations has hugely transformed. Situating the U.S.-India relationship against this complex backdrop truly demands a “reset.” Except in a dogmatic way, it is not possible to see the future of the relationship as turning, and turning in a widening gyre of alliance equation. Perhaps, there never was such an equation. There is indeed a disconnect between our pundits and policymakers here. The Indian leadership seems willing to apply new thinking. Will our pundits be capable of appreciating that the U.S. has specific regional and global interests and its partnership can be selective?
First and foremost, India's regional environment. National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon's keynote address — in the August presence of Rashtrapathiji — at the 75th jubilee of the National Defence College underscored that a lot of creative thinking is going on to structure a forward-looking strategic vision that can help India navigate the highly volatile regional and international situation. The global vision based on the “balance of power,” which our pundits merrily espoused for a decade, has been exposed as naivety. India does not foresee the prospect of the major powers using force in their dealings with each other. This, in turn, makes the emergence of a direct conflict betwixt them or involving any of them with India highly improbable, no matter the existing discords, disputes or differences. Again, a nuclear war or confrontation between nuclear powers is not as likely, as threats which are derivatives of nuclear deterrence such as terrorism strain the very fabric of a country like India, which is secular, plural, and democratic.
{Above is the Indian world view after the 2008 financial collapse and the subsequent reset underway. It means expect more terrorism which is enabled under the nuke umbrella. So new instruments of deterrence are needed. Asymmetric but needed.}
In sum, Mr. Obama's visit has triggered an extraordinarily creative period in the Indian strategic thinking. How do we bring all these strands of new thinking together? Evidently, as Mr. Menon brilliantly summed up: “The challenges of a globalised world cannot be handled by twentieth century military alliances or containment strategies.”
Hasn't something fundamentally changed in the world order since the international financial crisis erupted? The emerging powers have shown unexpected resilience to pull through the crisis while the industrial world continues to languish. China and India in particular are cruising forward at great speed and are becoming evermore innovative. A transfer of wealth of historic proportions may be under way. As Paul Krguman wrote recently, this has engendered claims that the payback time is approaching for the emerging powers to transfer some of their new wealth to the ailing U.S. economy. China already figures in the U.S. cross hairs and India needs to carefully figure out when its turn might come. There is a lot of churning going on at the moment, as the meeting of the G-20 Finance Ministers in the South Korean city of Gyeongju underscored. The U.S. displayed its determination to push for “fair” exchange rate rules and for setting numerical targets for trade balance, while India and China promptly rebuffed the move. The paradox is that whereas the G-20 has emerged as the most important forum for global economic policymaking since the financial crisis, it is increasingly finding it difficult to agree on anything but the broadest brushstrokes.
The Indian strategic analysts who visualise an alliance of Asian democracies or conjecture a U.S.-India axis patrolling the “global commons” are not seeing the writing on the wall — that the number one priority for a highly focussed leader like Mr. Obama is going to be global issues such as trade balance and exchange rates, and climate change, which are of immense concern to his agenda of regenerating the ailing American economy. Mr. Obama would like to know how India sees its interests and explore if tangible benefits can be derived to generate new jobs in America. He can anticipate that the Seoul heads of government meeting in November may turn out to be a damage limitation exercise rather than a leap forward toward a monumental agreement on rebalancing the global economy. In short, trust an extraordinary cerebral mind like Mr. Obama's to be able to comprehend the meaning of India's rise. That he empathises with India is not in doubt, but these are hard times.
The lobby of American arms manufacturers played up China's growing diplomatic and military clout and the angst of our pundits poured out on newspaper columns. But let us hear first how the U.S. proposes to deal with China's rise. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last week: “The relationship between China and the U.S. is complex and of enormous consequence, and we are committed to getting it right … In the 21st century, it is not in anyone's interest for the U.S. and China to see each other as adversaries. So, we are working together to chart a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship for this new century … And we do look forward to closely working with China, both bilaterally and through key institutions as it takes on a greater role and, at the same time, takes on more responsibility in global and international affairs.”
She highlighted, “We will welcome President Hu Jintao to Washington in early 2011 ... The United States is committed to making this visit a historic success.” Our pundits should do some honest introspection. Surely, there's some political symbolism in that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh scheduled four meetings with the Chinese leadership in the weeks straddling Mr. Obama's visit — “stop in India” during his “major trip to Asia,” as Ms Clinton quaintly put it.
Similarly, it has been crystal clear that the U.S. is involved in a clausewitzean war in Afghanistan. The David Headley saga is a stunning reminder that realpolitik can trump soap operas of the “concert of democracies.” Alas, our discourses are again missing the plot to imagine that our discord with Washington is merely a question concerning the Taliban or the Haqqani network. It's much more profound and it is long-term. Pakistan will be a pivotal relationship for the U.S. in the “new great game” once Gwadar shapes up as the port head of the Silk Road (protected by NATO), unlocking the multitrillion dollar mineral wealth of Central Asia and Afghanistan. A reset of India-U.S. ties has become necessary for deepening the partnership despite such glaring differences.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
Not quite. With India being offered bases in Vietnam, building a deeper and more meaningful relationship with japan, korea and US, China can view itself being encircled. China was playing the waiting game with US/Japan and its allies in East Asia. In this game, China wins due to it sheer size. Throw India into the matrix and the game changes dramatically against China. It looses in the waiting game.chetak wrote:This is a bit rich.
Chinese-daily-accuses-India-of-encircling-China
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/vide ... 831397.cms
We have to look at the totality” of China’s efforts, said Representative Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican who may become head of the House Armed Services readiness subcommittee. Once lawmakers focus on emerging challenges in areas from cyber warfare to aircraft carriers to missiles, they’ll say, “We better be changing our readiness capability.”
That would entail shifting more money toward weapons programs, rather than increasing spending, benefiting makers of sea-based anti-missile systems, submarines, destroyers and long- range drones. Another winner could be Alliant Techsystems Inc., which is developing targets to test defenses against a supersonic Chinese anti-ship missile. The political impetus to cut defense spending may grow when a bipartisan commission appointed by President Barack Obama next month releases recommendations on how to rein in the federal deficit. The Pentagon budget, which totaled $691 billion last year, may be one target. ‘1% Real Increase’
The Chinese, and China’s leaders in particular, like stability, both at home and in their relations with other countries. They find these kind of dramatic electoral swings — whether it’s Obamamania in 2008 or the Tea Party Revolution in 2010 — perplexing and a bit unnerving. The Chinese prefer dealing with known quantities, and then all of a sudden a new group of people are swept into power, who have to be figured out. Typically, the Chinese wait and see, hoping nothing fundamental will change
In fact, however, that’s rooted more in perception than reality. America’s China policy, from Bush Sr. to Clinton to W to Obama, has been remarkably consistent. Differences that do exist over China don’t split neatly along party lines — a broad range of views can be found in both parties. Republicans, when they are critical, tend to focus more on the potential national security threat posed by China. Democrats tend to focus more on the economic threat to American jobs. But even this distinction is far from absolute.
In fact, the real danger to China is that the bipartisan consensus that has lasted for nearly 40 years may be starting to break down. The factor that is driving this breakdown — and leading to all those anti-China campaign ads, from both sides – isn’t so much a political change in the U.S. (although the depressed state of the US economy isn’t helping any) but China’s own rising power and influence, and concern over what that means. In many ways, China is coming to occupy the same place in the American imagination that Japan did in the 1980s. ( In late 80s Japanese were on rise , Sony CEO wrote book "Japan can Say NO")
Some points to ponder.This outflow from the dollar is not the kind of capital that takes the form of tangible investment in plant and equipment, buildings, research and development. It is not a creation of assets as much as the creation of debt, and its multiplication by mirroring, credit insurance, default swaps and an array of computerized forward trades. The global financial system has decoupled from trade and investment, taking on a life of its own.
In fact, financial conquest is seeking today what military conquest did in times past: control of land and basic infrastructure, industry and mining, banking systems and even government finances to extract the economic surplus as interest and tollbooth-type economic rent charges. U.S. officials euphemize this policy as “quantitative easing.” The Federal Reserve is flooding the banking system with so much liquidity that Treasury bills now yield less than 1%, and banks can draw freely on Fed credit. Japanese banks have seen yen borrowing rates fall to 0.25%.
We might, indeed, paraphrase Clausewitz's old dictum to say: "Trade has become the Continuation of War by Other Means."In fact, financial conquest is seeking today what military conquest did in times past.
A_Gupta wrote:Don't get caught up in the Western India vs. China stuff. To the West it is an ideological belief that capitalism and democracy/free-market go together, and therefore, whatever the evidence might be, India must overtake China.
To me, the real challenge for India is not to overtake China as a goal. It is to improve the life of its people (in terms of the Human Development Indices, I want (unrealistically) for India to advance the equivalent of 50 places in the next 15 years). If that means also overtaking China, that's fine. If it doesn't mean overtaking China, that's fine, too. It is possible to have a huge economy that doesn't cater well to human welfare - a thousand billionaires, and hundreds of millions in poverty, there is no point in that.
The other thought is that while India and China may compete in some markets, the overall effect of two rapidly expanding economies trading with each other should be to boost the growth of both.
Lastly, the relevant metrics IMO are:
1. Is India doing better (in all relevant indices) than last year?
2. Is India doing better at removing the constraints to growth?
But the interesting thing about Exercise Habu Nag was not in the manoeuvres that were being executed, nor their size. It was all about the location—in the waters off Japan’s Okinawa, just as Sino-Japanese tensions were rising over a maritime territorial dispute.
Indeed, it’s fitting that the issue of China again loomed so large over the exercises, because it has been Chinese criticism that in the past couple of years has deterred India from engaging fully with the United States in this way.
Habu Nag is only one of the 35 joint exercises conducted by the Indian and the US armed forces over the past five years. But it marked a noticeable shift even from last year, when the Indian Ministry of Defence refused to grant permission for similar participation by an Indian contingent in an exercise with the United States.
India’s hesitation in 2009 partly stemmed from Beijing’s very vocal protest in 2007 after the US, Indian, Australian, Japanese and Singaporean navies staged the unprecedented Malabar Exercise in the Bay of Bengal, manoeuvres that China saw as part of an attempt at encirclement.
I agree whole hearted with this sentiment.ramana wrote:Very good post by A_Gupta..
A_Gupta wrote:Don't get caught up in the Western India vs. China stuff. To the West it is an ideological belief that capitalism and democracy/free-market go together, and therefore, whatever the evidence might be, India must overtake China.
To me, the real challenge for India is not to overtake China as a goal. It is to improve the life of its people (in terms of the Human Development Indices, I want (unrealistically) for India to advance the equivalent of 50 places in the next 15 years). If that means also overtaking China, that's fine. If it doesn't mean overtaking China, that's fine, too. It is possible to have a huge economy that doesn't cater well to human welfare - a thousand billionaires, and hundreds of millions in poverty, there is no point in that.
The other thought is that while India and China may compete in some markets, the overall effect of two rapidly expanding economies trading with each other should be to boost the growth of both.
Lastly, the relevant metrics IMO are:
1. Is India doing better (in all relevant indices) than last year?
2. Is India doing better at removing the constraints to growth?
I appreciate these sentiments, but am worried that it under-emphasizes naked Chinese aggression against India....ramana wrote:Very good post by A_Gupta..
A_Gupta wrote:Don't get caught up in the Western India vs. China stuff. To the West it is an ideological belief that capitalism and democracy/free-market go together, and therefore, whatever the evidence might be, India must overtake China.
To me, the real challenge for India is not to overtake China as a goal. It is to improve the life of its people (in terms of the Human Development Indices, I want (unrealistically) for India to advance the equivalent of 50 places in the next 15 years). If that means also overtaking China, that's fine. If it doesn't mean overtaking China, that's fine, too. It is possible to have a huge economy that doesn't cater well to human welfare - a thousand billionaires, and hundreds of millions in poverty, there is no point in that.
The other thought is that while India and China may compete in some markets, the overall effect of two rapidly expanding economies trading with each other should be to boost the growth of both.
Lastly, the relevant metrics IMO are:
1. Is India doing better (in all relevant indices) than last year?
2. Is India doing better at removing the constraints to growth?
China ready for consultation with India over UNSC reform
BEIJING: Sounding positive to US President Barack Obama's endorsement of India's bid for permanent seat in the UNSC, China today said it understands New Delhi's "aspirations" to play a bigger role in the UN and is ready for consultations with it over reform of the world body.
"China values India's status in the international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations and is ready to keep contact and consultations with India and other member states on the issues of Security Council reform," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hong Lei said during a media briefing.
"China supports reasonable and necessary reform of the UN Security Council and will maintain priority to giving more representation to developing countries at UNSC so that they can play bigger role in Security Council," Hong said.
He said China wants democratic and patient consultations over the issue.
"We hope all parties should continue to have democratic and patient consultations so as to reach a package of consensus on reform related issues so that negations will become a process to narrow differences, safeguard unity and realise a win-win scenario," he said.
Asked about Obama's assertion that US would also support India's membership for Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime, the Australian Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement, Hong said all countries should respect their international obligation of non-proliferation.
"China believes that countries under the precondition of respecting the international obligation of non proliferation have the right to make peaceful use of nuclear energy and conduct international cooperation in this field. Meanwhile it should safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of the international non proliferation regime," he said.
"We hope that cooperation between relevant countries could contribute to regional peace stability and development."
The issue of India's permanent membership to the UNSC has always figured high in the talks between Indian and Chinese leaders.
The issue was raised during President Pratibha Patil's visit to Beijing this year as well as Foreign minister S M Krishna's visit earlier.
"China understands India's aspirations at the UN" was the standard phrase it came up with during the talks sounding cautious and ambivalent on the complex UNSC reform process.
China has also voted for India's candidature to the non-permanent seat at the UNSC.
Obama's endorsement of India's membership leaves only China to take a stand on the issue as the other four of the five permanent members — US, Russia, Britain and France — have already conveyed their support for New Delhi's elevation to the top organ of the world body.
India not have the UNSC seat is advantageous.ramana wrote:I was wondering when the PRC will come to this. The reason is UNSC membership for India is another China card of the US. So we are seeing a great game of tango between the US and PRC. So by agreeing to dsicuss the UNSC seat for India they are removing another brownie point against them by the US.
I wouldn't be surprised if they push for veto status and throw out one of th eEuropean votes. For eg. they can say the UK and France can have a rotating veto seat which allows one veto vacancy. And this can be rotated between India, Germany, Japan and Brazil.
Acahrya, I think that is what India will do is raise the pain for these charlatans.Obama backs India UNSC bid to contain China: US media
November 09, 2010 10:10:53 PM
IANS | Washington
US President Barack Obama's announcement of support for India's permanent membership in the UN Security Council (UNSC) is seen by large sections of the US media as an attempt to counter China.
The influential New York Times said that by endorsing India for a permanent seat Obama had "signalled the United States' intention to create a deeper partnership of the world's two largest democracies that would expand commercial ties and check the influence of an increasingly assertive China".
The Washington Post agreed, saying it was "a powerful endorsement of India's growing economic power and global aspirations, but one likely to anger China and Pakistan".
The Christian Science Monitor said Obama "wowed the Indian Parliament with a strong US endorsement of India's bid to become a permanent member" of the UNSC.
But "Obama's flattering justification for India to join one of the world's most exclusive and powerful clubs does not mean the booming South Asian democracy should expect to see its name engraved on a Security Council seat in New York any time soon", it said.
"Getting from consensus to actual reform is not going to be easy, for both practical and political reasons," it said, citing Michael Doyle, a former UN official now specialising in international relations at Columbia University in New York.
The Los Angeles Times described Obama's endorsement as "a dramatic show of respect to the powerful nation he hopes will play a key role in support of US interests around the world."
"The pledge is only a step in direction of new international stature for India," it said, noting "the nation likely won't attain permanent council status anytime soon, and the US is backing its addition only as part of a series of council reforms that could be years in the making".
The Wall Street Journal said: "The gesture toward India was long-sought by New Delhi and greeted warmly by the Indian Parliament during the president's speech."
It cited Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as saying the move was meant to formalise India's rise as a world and regional power.
ramana wrote:I was wondering when the PRC will come to this. The reason is UNSC membership for India is another China card of the US. So we are seeing a great game of tango between the US and PRC. So by agreeing to dsicuss the UNSC seat for India they are removing another brownie point against them by the US.
I wouldn't be surprised if they push for veto status and throw out one of th eEuropean votes. For eg. they can say the UK and France can have a rotating veto seat which allows one veto vacancy. And this can be rotated between India, Germany, Japan and Brazil.
Even before Obama left Indian soil, the American spin machine had begun to dole out propaganda to defend against criticism from the US allies, Pakistan, South Korea and Italy (countries which have no hope of making it to a reformed UN security council), that Obama’s endorsement of India for a permanent council seat was aimed at restraining China. In reality, the very opposite is what is most likely to happen.
In the early days of the National Democratic Alliance government, when the Chinese found out that India and the US had decided to bury the hatchet about the 1998 nuclear tests, China’s ambassador in New Delhi took the initiative and immediately called on George Fernandes even though the defence minister had branded China as India’s “Enemy No. 1”. The ambassador invited Fernandes to visit Beijing and he mellowed after the visit. Chinese diplomacy is nothing short of ultimate pragmatism and, contrary to Washington’s calculations, one outcome of Obama’s visit will certainly be a significant improvement in Sino-Indian relations. Beijing is sure to take the initiative for this, and New Delhi will not be found wanting in its response.
It is a mitra bheda strategy on chinaDhiman wrote:
India has still not instituted capital curbs. Seems like GoI has some kind of tacit agreement with US or just selling out India to US hot money for free?
With US President Barack Obama declaring support for India's bid for a permanent seat, China may move beyond its stated position by announcing a more pointed support for New Delhi's place on the global high table during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit next month. The Chinese premier is expected to visit India Dec 16-17, his first trip to the country in five years.
Sources disclosed that Beijing may surprise New Delhi and belie critics who think the US support was meant to counter China's ascent on the global stage.
A day after Obama endorsed India's bid for permanent seat in the UNSC, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Tuesday said in Beijing that China was ready for consultations over the issue and values India's status in the international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations. Beijing's willingness to discuss the issue is seen here as "a step forward" ahead of Wen's visit.
Beijing has already begun to acknowledge India's surging global status. Recently, Beijing elevated China's ambassador to India Zhang Yan to the position equivalent to that of vice foreign minister, a status it gives to only Chinese ambassadors to P5 countries.
This is a pattern. Every time the US inches closer to the US, Beijing watches it carefully and tries to assure India that it's is not against India's rise.
Britain, France and Russia have already pledged support for India's permanent seat in the global body. French President Nicholas Sarkozy and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev are also set to visit India in December and are expected to reiterate their support for India's UN aspirations, making 2010 the year of India's UN diplomacy.
Any fallout!!Nothing. If at all, ignoring the interest part. China is making a late-payment for Indian support for PRC's UNSC seat.krisna wrote: Too good to be true. what will GOI give in return for its support for permanent member.