Bharat Rakshak

Foreign policy blues - Transparent approach is need of the hour by G. Parthasarathy

[quote] India’s foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union was skilfully crafted by the Narasimha Rao government. It was recognised that in the post-Cold War era, India like China and Russia had to fashion a new relationship with the United States while the strengthening existing ties with other centres of power — Russia, Japan and the EU. While a cooperative and tension-free relationship with China was desirable, China’s unrelenting efforts to “containâ€

[edited to save bandwidth. Admin]


the article summarises the strategic thinking of this govt, headed by MMS. as much as i respect Manmohan's character, he is too much of a economist and gentleman to be a useful crafter of strategic foreign policy. he's too gentle in his approach and most importantly, for some reason, he doesn't understand that the world is not as rosy as it appears; there are hidden agendas for every damn country and India, yes India, better have one too.

Pioneer Book Review, 15 June 2007

Forwarding a lost cause

Dixit showcases how the country squandered its decisive global edge by allowing its foreign policy to be dictated by ideological moorings rather than realpolitik, writes Sanjoy Bagchi

Indian Foreign Service: History and Challenge, JN Dixit, Konark, Rs 550


JN Dixit was a prolific writer. As a diplomat, he wrote on almost all the areas where he had worked in his long career. His last book dealt with the history of the Indian Foreign Service of which he was a distinguished member. The foreign service has not been studied in depth so far and there could not have been a better person than Dixit, with his intimate knowledge of the machine and its working, to deal with it.

Unfortunately, the book gives the impression of being a posthumous work, published in a hurry. It could have been improved by rigorous editing and some rearrangement of the contents. Nonetheless, it is a valuable account, particularly of the early years, perceptively told by a knowledgeable author.

The author has identified three distinct phases in the evolution of the country's foreign policy and its management. The first phase beginning with Independence was dominated by Nehru and lasted until after the Chinese War. The second phase was concerned with the long premiership of Mrs Indira Gandhi from 1967 to 1984. The last phase from 1985 dealt with successive Governments beginning with the accession of Rajiv Gandhi.

In pursuance of his ideology, based on idealism, multilateralism and socialism, Nehru took the Kashmir dispute to UN and kowtowed to China, much against the advice of his Ministry's officials, for which we are still paying the price. Nehru's policy has been set in stone and its main features have been blindly followed by all successor Congress Governments. Remarkably, it has no place for India's national interest or for relations with the neighbours. When Nehru's Ambassadors suggested that India should not neglect the ASEAN countries, he sarcastically reacted by saying "it was extraordinary that they expected him to have close relations with 'Coca Cola' Governments".

{This is pure Macaulyization. Prior to colonialsm, India had extensive trade with SE Asia and the Mughal empire's prosperity was equally from the SE Asia trade. The colonial powers first ports were on the East -Kolkota, Madras, Mauslipatanam, Yannam, Pondicherry and Trancobar.}

Because of the awe in which Nehru was held, the External Affairs Ministry or the IFS were never able to perform their designed functional role. The traditional function of observing and analysing international developments had been taken over by Nehru himself. During this period, there was "general absence of consultations and group discussions within the Ministry at middle or lower executive levels". The ideological framework and the policy were decided by Nehru himself and handed down to the officials for execution.

Mrs Indira Gandhi departed from her father's practice and "allowed institutional autonomy to the Ministry" under a separate Foreign Minister. She was more interested in manipulating domestic policy but, as in all other democratic countries, had a final say in foreign relations through her Principal Secretary. The policy moved from its earlier "idealistic and romantic phase to more realistic moorings". The obsessive regard for Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai was discarded. The concept of non-alignment was tilted more heavily in favour of the Soviet Union.

Mrs Gandhi personally managed the foreign relations while preparing for the 1971 Bangladesh War and she adroitly succeeded in isolating Pakistan diplomatically and in resisting the US's gun-boat diplomacy. Unfortunately, she allowed herself to be outwitted at the end in the Simla Conference by her Pakistani adversary.

Mrs Gandhi's tenure "witnessed a more open debate on foreign policy issues within the MEA". But formally Panchsheel continued to be the abiding creed. The tilted policy of non-alignment still prevailed. The cause of the developing countries was championed relentlessly. A balanced equation of political and economic power was sought in all international fora. The excessive emphasis on political work in diplomacy was maintained at the cost of economic and commercial aspects of foreign relations. And in these pursuits, the country's national interests were often neglected, if not sacrificed.

Rajiv Gandhi paved the way for a dialogue with China on the vexed question of borders. He was more relaxed with the US and was able to suppress the instinctive hostility of the Congress to the superpower. He was more interested in building up closer relations with the neighbours and activated the SAARC. His Waterloo, however, was the military misadventure in Sri Lanka.

The Governments of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh were mostly preoccupied with the fallout of India's nuclear explosion and the international ramifications of Islamist terrorism in the country. Both the Governments, without disturbing the traditional relations with Russia, succeeded in bridge-building with the US.

Dixit has dealt with the IFS, its recruitment and training, its work culture and social dimensions. The most important part, however, is related to the challenges of the future that the service will be called upon to face. Dixit has underlined the construction of "new paradigms of relationships", the pursuit of economic diplomacy in the WTO and other fora, and the use of power levers for lasting peace and stability in South Asia. Refreshingly he has avoided the old shibboleths that had been the dominating creed in the past.

-- The reviewer is a Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society

Interesting that the PVNR years nor the Gujral doctrine are not mentioned in the review!

ramana wrote:Pioneer Book Review, 15 June 2007

{This is pure Macaulyization. Prior to colonialsm, India had extensive trade with SE Asia and the Mughal empire's prosperity was equally from the SE Asia trade. The colonial powers first ports were on the East -Kolkota, Madras, Mauslipatanam, Yannam, Pondicherry and Trancobar.}

Colonial countries started out as traders and focused on region with heavier trade. It was mostly in the eastern region from Madras to Kolkatta and SE asia region. The naval resistance was also less comapred to the Maratthas and Arabs in the west.

Hence Kolkatta became the capital of British India for more than 100 years.

Deccan Chronicle, 11 July 2007


Looks like an Indian version of "I accuse" the UPA govt of:

Goofs and gaffes of Indian diplomacy
By Satish Chandra

While Indian diplomacy has, over the years, had its share of bloomers — even monumental ones, such as the recognition of China’s sovereignty over Tibet or the misplaced generosity shown to Pakistan in 1972 at Simla — it has been exempt from the series of goofs and gaffes which have characterised it over the last couple of years.

Pride of place amongst these must be accorded to the home minister’s statement of July 2, 2007 to the effect that we must not "blame" Pakistan for the "increase in infiltration and spurt in violence" in Jammu and Kashmir. Completely at variance with ground realities, and coming on the eve of the India-Pakistan home secretary level talks, it is yet another instance of an own side goal at which our government is particularly adept.

This statement is analogous to that of the Prime Minister in September 2006, wherein he equated Pakistan with India by terming it a "victim" of terror and argued that terrorism from Pakistan could have been undertaken by "autonomous jihadi groups" beyond Musharraf’s control. It is statements such as these, and moves such as the establishment of the joint anti-terror mechanism with Pakistan, which have encouraged the latter to continue to bleed us daily through its use of terrorism. Accordingly, the government today cannot escape the charge of being complicit in Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India.

India’s welcome in December 2006 of Pakistani proposals on Kashmir, including ideas like demilitarisation, joint control, making borders irrelevant, self-rule etc, is inexplicable. It weakened India’s case on Kashmir, encouraged separatist elements to look for a solution to Pakistan rather than to India, and, above all, put paid to our stated position on Kashmir for vacation of aggression by Pakistan and its cessation of terrorism. Clearly on this, as on several other issues, government negotiates not by hanging tough as behoves an emerging power but by making concessions upfront.

The national security adviser’s statement in May 2007, arguing that Sri Lanka must realise that "India is the big power in the region," and that it should therefore look to India and not "Pakistan or China for weapons," while simultaneously indicating that no "offensive" weapons would be supplied to it, is hard to beat for sheer arrogance and unreasonableness. It could not have been better calculated to cause offence to Sri Lanka, Pakistan and China thereby making a mockery of our efforts to cultivate closer ties with our neighbours. The Sri Lankan media was, naturally, incensed at the statement and the Pakistani spokesperson went to town citing it as reflective of India’s hegemonic tendencies.

Government’s projection of Shashi Tharoor as its candidate for the post of UN Secretary-General in June 2006 without tying up requisite support made his defeat and, consequently, the nation’s loss of prestige a near certainty. It can at best be characterised as a mindless act and a reflection of misplaced priorities. At a time when government should have been totally focused on securing a permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council, it chose instead to expend its meagre political capital to promote the candidature of an NRI for the post of UN Secretary-General who, had he won, would have done little to promote India’s cause.

India’s unnecessary and unjustified vote, extracted under US pressure, at the IAEA against Iran seriously damaged our hitherto friendly relations with the latter. By vividly demonstrating the extent to which India had become a US camp follower, this vote also adversely affected our standing in the international community and impinged negatively on our ties with countries like Russia and China.

The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, being progressed reportedly by concessions by government on pricing, will make India dependent on Iranian and Pakistani goodwill for assured gas supplies. Any major deterioration in ties could lead to suspension in supplies. It is not clear what foolproof provisions, if any, have been built into the project to insulate India from such supply disruptions.

On China, government’s record has been one of both inefficiency and spinelessness. Disregarding past experience, it first gratuitously offered China the opportunity to rub India’s nose in the dirt by seeking a Chinese visa for an IAS officer from Arunachal Pradesh. After China, as expected, refused the visa, government, far from making any meaningful riposte, performed the perfect kowtow with the Prime Minister hailing it as India’s "greatest neighbour."

On Nepal, government’s efforts to prop up the King, even after it was apparent that his days as a major player in that country’s polity were numbered, verge on the ludicrous. In this context, one need only cite, government’s dispatch of its own royal in the form of Dr Karan Singh for a meeting with the King in April 2006, endorsement of the latter’s subsequent ploy of asking the seven-party alliance to nominate its candidate as Prime Minister, and continued support to the discredited twin pillar theory of constitutional monarchy being as necessary as multiparty democracy for stability in Nepal. Our reluctance to acknowledge the fact that the Maoists are an important player in Nepal’s polity persists to this day as evidenced by reports that our leadership has called on the UML to patch up with the National Congress to strengthen democratic forces in the country. This will inevitably contribute to the souring of relations with the Maoists who cannot be wished away. In contrast, China, which had initially supported the King against the Maoists, has been quick to mend its relations with the latter.

Government’s persistence with trying to concretise the nuclear deal with the US, even though it will cripple our strategic capabilities and reduce us to a US dependency, without doing much for our energy security, is nothing short of an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. Indeed, many of the aforementioned foreign policy goofs emanate, in some measure, from the tectonic shift in India’s foreign policy from that of a country with a fiercely independent foreign policy to that of a client state of the United States. In the process, time tested approaches to various issues are being sacrificed and the resulting changes are being marketed as "out of the box" solutions even though these may be against stated national policy and the national interest.

Rigorous professionalism could, perhaps, have averted at least some of our foreign policy gaffes, as it would have kept the government focused on the straight and narrow of national interest, and prevented it from straying down the slippery slope of "doable" exercises in pursuit of "out of the box" solutions. But respect for such professionalism is at a discount as evidenced by the following decisions pertaining to the management of our foreign policy establishment:

* Repeated grant of extensions to several over the hill long retired Foreign Service officers as heads of missions in some of our most coveted posts abroad. This has demoralised serving Foreign Service officers by adversely affecting their career prospects and given a further fillip in the service to our national failing: sycophancy.

* The appointment of innumerable special envoys on foreign policy related issues. This impinges adversely on the role of the foreign secretary as well as serving officers.

* Appointment of a head of mission in a crucial neighbouring country selected not for his expertise on that country but for his lack of it.

* Entrusting conduct of negotiations on the nuclear deal not to the head of the concerned technical division in the ministry of external affairs but to the former head of the America’s division who is currently on an assignment abroad. It is said that he works nights on the nuclear deal and days on mission work.

* Satish Chandra has served as India’s PR to the UN in Geneva, High Commissioner to Pakistan, and Deputy National Security Adviser

Can we do something to make sure that Congress does not come to power again??

Ahem !

Mohammad Haneef has been granted bail by the Brisbane court.

He was charged by the Australian police of 'recklessly aiding terrorism'.

Raju wrote:Ahem !

Mohammad Haneef has been granted bail by the Brisbane court.

He was charged by the Australian police of 'recklessly aiding terrorism'.

And the Australian govt keeps one step ahead. Revokes his visa, so that now Haneef is put in another jail (related to immigration). What about treating somebody innocent until proven guilty? If Haneef is found guilty, he should be severely punished, but if he is innocent then what Australian govt is doing is criminal.

Haneef is in all probability a scapegoat. The Australians are using him for gaining 'me too' status. Which is that their corner of the world is also right in the middle of a 'war against terror' and thus they will need to curb the liberties of all their citizens accordingly as well at a future date.

Haneef is being made a scapegoat to serve that purpose. Obviously it is happening with the complete acknowledgement of the Indian Govt for if GoI puts its foot down, the australians will relent. MMS goes on record saying that he 'feels sad' but does little else. Business as usual.

India asks Australia to treat Haneef 'fairly'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 207873.cms

NEW DELHI: India has conveyed its concern to Australia over the issue of Mohammad Haneef, who has been held in connection with failed UK terror plot and asked Canberra to treat him "fairly and justly" under Australian law. India's concern was conveyed by Ministry of External Affairs to the Australian High Commission.

India has also sought Consular access to another doctor Sabeel Ahmed, who has been held in Britain, but has not got it so far.

"Ministry of External Affairs expressed its concern to the Australian government that Dr Mohammad Haeef should be treated fairly and justly under Australian law," Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told reporters.

His comments came hours after the Australian government cancelled Haneef's

This sort of thing makes my blood boil, why waste diplomatic band width and more importantly good will over terrorists.....this UPA govt is clearly a complete circus.....while hundreds of Indian Soldiers/citizens rot in Paki jails.....wat a disgrace

Apu wrote:India asks Australia to treat Haneef 'fairly'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 207873.cms

NEW DELHI: India has conveyed its concern to Australia over the issue of Mohammad Haneef, who has been held in connection with failed UK terror plot and asked Canberra to treat him "fairly and justly" under Australian law. India's concern was conveyed by Ministry of External Affairs to the Australian High Commission.

India has also sought Consular access to another doctor Sabeel Ahmed, who has been held in Britain, but has not got it so far.

"Ministry of External Affairs expressed its concern to the Australian government that Dr Mohammad Haeef should be treated fairly and justly under Australian law," Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told reporters.

His comments came hours after the Australian government cancelled Haneef's

This sort of thing makes my blood boil, why waste diplomatic band width and more importantly good will over terrorists.....this UPA govt is clearly a complete circus.....while hundreds of Indian Soldiers/citizens rot in Paki jails.....wat a disgrace

Yeah...but the catch is that this Haneef guy is yet to be proven guilty and till then he is (or should be presumed) innocent. What was it that the Aussie Immigration minister said? Something about Haneef having a 'bad character'? Interesting is it not that the revelation about bad character should come only after he posts bail?

I'd be wary of the Australians anyways...with exceptions of course they epitomize the WTC label!

Yeah...but the catch is that this Haneef guy is yet to be proven guilty and till then he is (or should be presumed) innocent. What

That is the case with every Indian undertrial in Pakistani jail. The Indian govt. never bothered to issue such an advisory to Pakistan.

This UPA govt. is going to become insufferable as 2009 elections approach. The Congress -- "the natural party of governance"-- is for the first time after independence having to contend with a strong BJP as another "alternative party of governance."

This has come as a cultural shock to Congress that is full of ageing aristocrats and nobility well past their expiry date. Now they are in the mood of "If we don't get to rule India, no one else will. We will burn the whole thing down." Their approach is similar to "If I don't get to marry you, no one else will. I will kill you."

As general elections approach, prepare for more madness from this party after gems like "Muslims have the first right to resources" and "Hindus in Godhra train set themselsves on fire as a propaganda coup against Muslims."

A law for quota in private jobs is surely going to come along with some other regulation like "All Hindus passing before Muslim houses have to prostrate five times as a mark of respect" (on the lines of the belly crawl order of General Dyer).

Congress is showing the anger of a woman scorned. And it will not allow Indians to go unpunished for it.

"The Cover Up",by B.Raman.

The author makes the point about India's indecent haste to aquit Dr.Haneef in the case against him in Australia.Our concerns about a fair hearing could have been made more discreetly through diplomatic channels and we could've left it to his lawyers ,who seem to be doing a good job in his defence,to play to the gallery,not the GOI.The unfortunate comments by Constable Singh,about his insomnia ,thinking about the good doctor's family worriing about him,indicates that Constable Singh and his party are more worried about the "Muslim" votebank in India than any real concern about terrorism.Pandering to any ethnic or religious group is a fatal act that will only guarantee future mayhem and chaos.Given Constable Singh's age,he probably isn't bothered about future generations of Indians,only his warm seat.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fo ... aman&sid=1

COUNTERPOINT
The Cover Up?
If the perception persists that the Indian political leadership and officials want to cover up the full extent of the alleged involvement of Indian Muslims in global jihad, it could come in the way of 123 agreement.

B. Raman

During the investigation into the Madrid blasts of March 11, 2004, in which 191 civilian suburban train commuters were killed, the Madrid Police had arrested two Indians and questioned without arrest two Spanish citizens of Indian origin on suspicion that the SIM cards used by the terrorists for triggering the explosions had been bought by the terrorists from their shops. All the four were Hindus. The investigation indicated that they were not aware of the background of the persons to whom they had sold the SIM cards. They were, therefore, not charged and released from detention..

There was no campaign against the Madrid Police in India at that time. The Indian media did not try to create a drama over the issue. The Indian intelligence and investigative agencies did not adopt an un-cooperative attitude. No attempt was made by the government of India to exercise pressure on the government of Spain in order to secure the release of the detained Indians before the completion of the investigation.

Western counter-terrorism experts have expressed concern and resentment over the manner in which the government of India has been trying to exercise pressure on the government of Australia to release, before the completion of investigation, Dr.Mohammad Haneef, who has been arrested in Brisbane and charged with the offence of providing "reckless support" to a terrorist organization by allegedly giving his SIM card to his cousin Dr. Sabeel Ahmed of Liverpool, who has been charged by the British Police under Section 38(B) of the Terrorism Act 2000 that he had information which he "knew or believed may be of material assistance in preventing the commission by another of an act of terrorism".

Kafeel Ahmed, the brother of Sabeel Ahmed, tried to drive a jeep filled with petrol, gas canisters and nails into the Glasgow airport on June 30, 2007, in order to cause an explosion. He was not able to do so. There was a fire in which he was badly burnt. He is still unconscious and has not yet been charged.

The investigation in the UK and Australia is still in the initial stages. The computer and its hard disc and other documents seized from Mohammad Haneef are still under technical examination. His friends and contacts in Australia are being identified and questioned systematically. Enquiries are being made about his stay in the UK before he migrated to Australia in September,2006.

There are many worrisome questions about him and his relatives. Why did he decide to migrate to Australia when he was professionally doing well in the UK? At the same time, Kafeel Ahmed and Sabeel Ahmed had also reportedly wanted to migrate to Australia, but they could not since the Australian Immigration reportedly had some reservations about their papers. Why did the three want to migrate together? Were they planning to start their sleeper cell in Australia? Did Kafeel Ahmed and Sabeel Ahmed set up the cell in the UK when their efforts to migrate to Australia failed? Finding answers to these questions would take time.

Moreover, any investigation would be incomplete without details regarding their background in India.

What were Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed doing in Bangalore when they came home for some months before they went back to the UK and started planning for their strikes in London and Glasgow? Where was Haneef at that time? Was he in touch with them?

There is an impression in Western counter-terrorism circles that whereas the Indian authorities co-operated readily when the suspects or perpetrators were Arabs or Pakistani nationals or Indian Muslims of foreign nationality, they have been dragging their feet when they found the suspected involvement of Indian Muslims with Indian nationality in global jihad for the first time.

The Indians were detained in Madrid almost for the same reason as Haneef in Australia. In Madrid, they were detained for selling SIM cards to terrorism suspects. Haneef has been detained for handing over his SIM card to a relative, who has subsequently been charged with an offence under the UK's Terrorism Act.

Whereas the Madrid detentions, where the suspects were Hindus, did not lead to any campaign or controversy in India, the Australian detention has been over-dramatised and the Australian Federal Police has been sought to be demonised in India just because the detained suspect is an Indian Muslim.

This has, unfortunately, been giving rise to an impression that the Indian political leadership and officials want to cover up the full extent of the alleged involvement of Indian Muslims in global jihad. If this impression persists and if the intelligence and
counter-terrorism officials of Western countries share with their respective Congressional or parliamentary over-sight committees their concerns over the perceived unco-operative attitude of the Indian authorities, this could come in the way of the final Congressional approval of the 123 agreement on Indo-US Nuclear Co-operation as and when it is signed and Australia supporting the agreement when it comes up before the Nuclear Suppliers' Group.


B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.

KPS Gill on the same subject.

Same Boot, Other Foot
In the Haneef case, we are behaving as unreasonably towards Australia as various Western powers did toward India. There are no allegations that he has been mistreated, tortured or otherwise discriminated against. We must not prejudge him.

K.P.S. Gill

The utter sensationalism, bias and hysteria that has attended most reportage and commentary on the arrest and detention of Haneef Ahmed in Australia is now being progressively exposed for its irrationality and error, as a few sane voices begin to put things in a perspective that has some connection to reality. Regrettably, the media frenzy has substantially been fed by - and, in turn, has fed - the responses of the Indian government at the highest level, creating a cycle of disinformation that can only bring all parties to contempt.

I recall the deep frustration we felt when Western governments stonewalled India on all cases relating to Khalistani terrorist activities, safe havens, mobilisation, funding and propaganda in foreign countries, during the period of terrorism in Punjab. Before they were jerked awake by 9/11 and subsequent Islamist attacks on Western targets, no amount of evidence was ever enough to convince these countries that a fugitive being demanded by India on extradition was actually a terrorist. Progressive disclosures relating to the Kanishka bombing conspiracy in Canada - which resulted in 329 deaths - have demonstrated the degree to which Western agencies were willing to ignore terrorist activities directed against India from their soil.

The boot is now on the other foot, and, in the Haneef case, we are behaving as unreasonably towards Australia as various Western powers did toward India. It needs to be clearly emphasised that there are no allegations that Haneef has been mistreated, tortured or otherwise discriminated against. He has been held in custody in connection with an extraordinarily serious crime - the failed terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow - on incontrovertible evidence, his SIM card, that ties him directly to the terrorists. No investigative agency will treat such a link lightly, and Australian authorities have indicated that there is other evidence that has not yet been disclosed (rightly, in view of the systematic leaks by defence lawyers and the process of trial by the Press that is currently ongoing).

In any event, the investigations into this case span three countries - the UK, India and Australia - and no enforcement authority will allow a suspect to go free until all the evidence has been assessed. This is inevitable where such close linkages to terrorists - if not to terrorist activity - are demonstrated, and even if Haneef is innocent, it remains the regrettable case that his troubles will not end until the investigations are concluded.

The Indian media has repeatedly paraded Haneef's family members, including his mother and his wife, and treated their testimonies as incontrovertible proof of his 'innocence'. While this crude theatre of the '***** of other people's suffering' may be good for TRP ratings, and may even inspire India's Prime Minister to comment, it has absolutely no evidentiary value.

In a long career in policing, including extended tenures dealing with insurgencies and terrorism, I have only rarely come across a family of a criminal or terrorist who is willing to admit the culpability of their son, brother, husband or other close relative, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Haneef's parents and wife in India cannot have any conclusive knowledge of his activities in the UK or in Australia - and his innocence or guilt would need to be demonstrated on altogether different grounds.

Concerns have also been expressed over the decision to hold Haneef in solitary confinement. Apart from the basis of this decision in Australian law, this is perhaps the most humane decision that could have been taken.

Australian authorities have discreetly spoken of 'privacy', but the truth is, such a measure is best for Haneef's protection.

Few people in India are, perhaps, acquainted with the curious case Dhiren Barot aka Issa al Britani aka Abu Issa al Hindi, the Kenyan-born Britisher of Indian ethnicity, who converted to Islam and joined Al Qaeda in plotting to detonate a radioactive 'dirty bomb' and to commit other acts of mass terrorism in the UK. Barot was convicted on these charges in October 2006 and sentenced to 30 years in prison. On July 16, 2007, Barot was attacked by other prisoners at the maximum security Frankland Prison in Durham, and was permanently disfigured after boiling water and, later, boiling oil, was thrown over him.

There is a well-established policy in Western detention centres that holds certain categories of detenues, including paedophiles and terrorists, both suspected and convicted, in isolated facilities or solitary confinement for their own safety.

None of these considerations have found much space in the frenetic reportage on the issue, which has been entirely prejudged. This has become a staple of successive media trials that have taken place on high profile cases in the recent past. In almost every case, a terrorist is never a terrorist - often even after he has been convicted, and his conviction upheld by a succession of courts, right up to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, we find that the police are always - with or without evidence - guilty of 'human rights violations' irrespective of the actual evidence, or of the procedural integrity of their actions.

All generalisations are subject to exception, but it is increasingly the case that most media organisations in India have become propagandists, resorting to outright falsehoods, 'sloganising' every issue, routinely abusing and demonising particular parties, while others are shielded or exempted from even the most cursory examination or censure.

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. The deep ignorance of history, fact, process and law that characterises news organisations today - and most prominently the electronic media - has trivialised and distorted the gravest and most momentous concerns of our age, and there appears to be an inverse relationship between the power and reach of the media in India and its adherence to any acceptable standards of reportage and conduct.

A deep arrogance is compounding profound ignorance to produce some of the most unfortunate commentaries on the Haneef case. We must not prejudge Haneef. This means, essentially, that, till investigation is complete and all the evidence is in, we must not conclude either that he is guilty or innocent.

The Australian investigative authorities are best positioned to assess the evidence currently at hand, and unless there is clear indication of abuse, torture, racism or procedural irregularities, we must invest our faith in their system, even as we hope that, when our turn comes, others will find it possible to trust our far more imperfect systems.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K.P.S.Gill is former director-general of police, Punjab. He is also Publisher, SAIR and President, Institute for Conflict Management. This article was first published in The Pioneer.

IBNLIVE:

New Delhi: A former top official of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has claimed the Prime Minister's Office was penetrated by the French intelligence.

He also claimed that the CIA had a mole in an office of India's spy agency during the early 1980s.

"The French intelligence penetrated the PMO and shared with its West European and American counterparts the intelligence and documents collected by it,â€

sanjaychoudhry wrote:

Yeah...but the catch is that this Haneef guy is yet to be proven guilty and till then he is (or should be presumed) innocent. What

That is the case with every Indian undertrial in Pakistani jail. The Indian govt. never bothered to issue such an advisory to Pakistan.

This UPA govt. is going to become insufferable as 2009 elections approach. The Congress -- "the natural party of governance"-- is for the first time after independence having to contend with a strong BJP as another "alternative party of governance."

This has come as a cultural shock to Congress that is full of ageing aristocrats and nobility well past their expiry date. Now they are in the mood of "If we don't get to rule India, no one else will. We will burn the whole thing down." Their approach is similar to "If I don't get to marry you, no one else will. I will kill you."

As general elections approach, prepare for more madness from this party after gems like "Muslims have the first right to resources" and "Hindus in Godhra train set themselsves on fire as a propaganda coup against Muslims."

A law for quota in private jobs is surely going to come along with some other regulation like "All Hindus passing before Muslim houses have to prostrate five times as a mark of respect" (on the lines of the belly crawl order of General Dyer).

Congress is showing the anger of a woman scorned. And it will not allow Indians to go unpunished for it.

or conversely, one can say that your blood is only boiling because he is an Indian Muslim.

Either way, if an Australian or British citizen was going through same thing in India, I am sure you would hear all sorts of whining from their respective governments. Using the analogy with Pakistan is meaningless as that would be a completely different context. I do not find the GoI's reaction to be over the top.

Regarding whatever else you said: It is disconnected to this and only supports my opening statement.

Finally, you should refrain from calling someone a terrorist before they have been proven guilty.

"or conversely, one can say that your blood is only boiling because he is an Indian Muslim."

It is the UPA govt.'s blood which is boiling because he is an Indian Muslim, not mine. I wonder if it would have issued a similar advisory to Australia if a Hindu had been caught in similar circumstances. Did I call Haneef a terrrorist? Read my reply again.

or conversely, one can say that your blood is only boiling because he is an Indian Muslim.

Either way, if an Australian or British citizen was going through same thing in India, I am sure you would hear all sorts of whining from their respective governments. Using the analogy with Pakistan is meaningless as that would be a completely different context. I do not find the GoI's reaction to be over the top.

Regarding whatever else you said: It is disconnected to this and only supports my opening statement.

Finally, you should refrain from calling someone a terrorist before they have been proven guilty.

My man Raja....i think our blood boils purely because the UPA is using foreign policy as means of swelling up it's ballot boxes by wooing the minority community which includes muslims and 'lower cast' Hindus.....my self and probably sanjay choudhary are not pulling this out of thin air....have a look at the bangladesh thread and the sentiments and evidence expressed there....again the UPA bends over backwards to beggardesh purely to sustain it's minority vote....

According to our secular constitution...each citizen should be treated regardless of religion/cast so one can say that this bending over backwards for the minority vote (note this is 'low cast Hindu's and Muslims...so religion cannot be made an issue) contradicts what the congress allegedly stands for....secularism....further suggesting that its prime goal is the minority vote....

Regarding diplomatic protests, it is the duty of any sovereign country to look after it's citizens at home as well as abroad however most countries would have pursued a less public and less vigourous protest initially...this is contradictory to the UPAs sudden public diplomatic hoohaa over the .. whole issue.

Jumping to a conclusion that people are moaning over the Haneef issue because Haneef is a muslim is unfair.....

GP in Pioneer, 26 July 2007

Non-alignment yes, NAM no

G Parthasarathy

Historian Ramachandra Guha has described Jawaharlal Nehru's policy of non-alignment as an attempt to place India "beyond and above the rivalries of Great Powers". While critics would describe non-alignment as utopian, realists would argue that despite professions of high moral principles, what Nehru was trying to do was to adopt a posture that led to India being wooed by both superpowers - the US and the Soviet Union.

The hard reality is that in 1947, India was economically and militarily weak. It needed assistance from both the superpowers. American and British hostility, particularly on Jammu & Kashmir, led to India depending on a Soviet veto in the Security Council. In return, India was forced to endorse the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. But Indian diplomacy skilfully ensured continuing Western economic assistance and particularly food aid, at time when our food production could not meet demand and our foreign exchange reserves were inadequate.

India today is very different from the India of the Cold War days. We are now recognised as an emerging economic power, no longer dependant on foreign aid for our economic progress. In these circumstances, does it make any sense to cling to old shibboleths and slogans like 'non-aligned solidarity' in a vastly transformed world order?

Addressing the US-India Business Summit in Washington on June 27, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised India's democratic institutions and the "rise" of India as an emerging economic power. Ms Rice observed: "I am happy that India and the US are accomplishing a great deal together these days, but I would say that we are only scratching the surface of what we can do. We, in America, look on the rise of India as an opportunity, a chance to work with a friendly democracy."

Ms Rice added: "India and the US can work together bilaterally, but multilaterally as well, together with other free countries like Japan, as well, together with other free countries like Australia and (South) Korea and our allies in Europe, working with large multi-ethnic and multi-religious democracies like Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa."

India is already expanding cooperation within Asia through regional groupings like SAARC and BIMSTEC, its multilateral ties with ASEAN and as a participant in the East Asia Summit. It has complemented its trilateral dialogue with Russia and China with an association embracing Australia, Japan and the US. It is a full-fledged dialogue partner of the European Union and a special invitee to the G-8 Summits, joining a select group of emerging economic powers to interact with the most powerful economies of the world. Moreover, groupings like the India-South Africa-Brazil partnership are becoming increasingly important on global economic issues and in fostering cooperation between like-minded countries spanning three continents.

Ms Rice triggered a controversy in her July 27 speech by asserting that "non-alignment" had lost its meaning after the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. She had evidently been irked by the shrill anti-American rhetoric that emerged at the recent non-aligned summit in Havana. This summit is now remembered in India only for the curious assertion, (described by a respected columnist to me as the "Havana Hallucinations,") of Mr Manmohan Singh that Pakistan, like India, is also a "victim of terrorism".

If Ms Rice failed to draw a distinction between being "non-aligned" and being a member of the "Non-aligned Movement" (NAM), External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, whose sagacity has been an asset in the conduct of our foreign policy, curiously responded by speaking about NAM rather than "nonalignment". He recalled that the NAM had played an important role in the process of decolonisation (that ended around four decades ago) and the ending of apartheid in South Africa (that happened 16 years ago). Mr Mukherjee said little about NAM's contemporary relevance beyond a reference to its importance in promoting "South-South Cooperation".

The Non-aligned Movement has little relevance in today's world. Only 52 heads of Government out of the 118 NAM members participated in the Havana Summit. The bulk of the members of the NAM today are economic basket cases, dependant on Western countries for their survival. They invariably bend to Western pressures in multilateral forums like the WTO. Over 50 members of NAM figure high in the index of the world's failed states.

The main features of the Havana Summit were a return to ritualistic condemnations of Israel and noises of support for Iran's nuclear programme. Interestingly, the non-aligned members of the UN Security Council, which supported Iran's nuclear programme in Havana, had no qualms in supporting resolutions in the Security Council that imposed sanctions on Iran for continuing with nuclear enrichment - confirming that rhetoric about "non-aligned solidarity" is farcical. A number of Arab countries, which voice strong condemnation of Israel in NAM meetings, are known to have clandestine ties with Israel on sensitive security issues. Peace in West Asia today is promoted by the 'Quartet' comprising the US, the EU, Russia and the UN, with this peace process based on hard realities and not bombastic NAM rhetoric.

While membership of the NAM does little to promote our national interests in the contemporary world, those who have conducted foreign policy in the post-Cold War years deserve credit for the skill with which they have guided an economically resurgent India into partnerships with ASEAN and East Asia, while pressing ahead with plans for economic integration with our Asian neighbourhood through groupings like SAARC and BIMSTEC. But India still faces major challenges on issues like terrorism and its quest for energy security in a volatile neighbourhood to its west, at a time when global demand for energy resources is rapidly expanding. A resurgent China appears bent on "containing" India with its nuclear and missile transfers to Pakistan and its quest for naval facilities across the sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean.

While it would be inadvisable to deal with these challenges by any military alliance with distant powers, India has to fashion structures across the entire Asia-Pacific region which promote a stable balance of power in this region. Non-alignment is relevant even today and really means the freedom to choose a wide range of partners to cooperate with on different issues, to protect our national interests. Thus, while being non-aligned gives us the flexibility to choose our partners and partnerships, the Non-aligned Movement is not a forum of any relevance, or importance, in today's world.

The "Aussie woman" and the cop,that raman speaks of,reminds me of a certain TN bewhiskered top cop who loved pics of himself and his handgun in the media,pursuing terrorists or Veerappan.He allegedly had an Aussie paramour and was accused by another dying woman in Oz of fathering their love child.Could it be the same set of whiskers?

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17945
East Asian security: India's rising profile
India is a surprising new actor in the unfolding security politics in East Asia.

By C Raja Mohan

India's grand strategy?
July also saw the unveiling of a strategic partnership between India and Vietnam during Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung to New Delhi. The joint declaration issued by Singh and Dung on 7 July, "welcomed the steady development of bilateral defense and security ties" and "pledged themselves to strengthen cooperation in defense supplies, joint projects, training cooperation and intelligence exchanges." Another visitor to New Delhi in July was Brendan Nelson, the defense minister of Australia. He signed a new agreement with India to enhance bilateral cooperation in maritime security and exchange of intelligence information.

Come September, India will host the largest multilateral naval exercises ever in the Bay of Bengal. Participating in these exercises are navies from the US, Japan, Australia and Singapore. Is there a grand strategy behind the frenetic pace of India’s military diplomacy? India argues it has no desire to align with any one power against another and that its interest lies in contributing to a stable balance of power in a "multipolar Asia."

As Indian troops contributed to the reversal of the Japanese occupation in Southeast Asia during World War II, the well-known diplomat-historian KM Panikkar argued that a "free and stable" India, "conscious of its responsibilities and capable of playing its part in Southeast Asia" is the “essential prerequisite" of any credible regional security mechanism. Until recently India seemed either unwilling or incapable of measuring up to its own power potential. Now, as it delivers annual economic growth rates of 9 percent, undertakes a significant military modernization, reorders its relations with the great powers, and deepens its cooperation with the regional actors, India is poised to reclaim its role in shaping Asian security.

China always expects India to be on defensive and explain itself. India’s communists aren’t helping (IE edit)

Shekhar Dupatta nails it good this time.

Though nailing commie lies n' ypocrisy these days is so easy any kid could do it.

Still, good that at least somebody is calling spade=spade.

Costly comments club
K.P. NAYAR

Ronen Sen. Picture by Jay Mandal/On Assignment
Washington, Aug. 21: Ronen Sen, temperamentally cautious and reflective, joins a list of high-calibre Indian diplomats who have paid a price for promoting policies they not only helped execute, but also fervently believe in.

The embassy here, with a staff of slightly over 130 people that he presides over, was a picture of outward calm today. But beneath that apparent calm was a cauldron of anxiety, concern and a heavy hangover from a night of burning the midnight oil.

Key members of Sen’s team were up most of the night drafting and transmitting messages back and forth to external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, who read out the ambassador’s explanation in an effort to calm members of Parliament.

Fortuitously, the embassy’s telephone lines went on the blink yesterday. That saved the diplomats inside from being swamped by calls, mainly from Indian Americans, this morning.

A large number of Indian Americans, who have worked very hard for the passage of the nuclear deal in the last two years, have been worried that the political crisis in New Delhi may see the end of the deal. They are now concerned that a key architect who helped design the deal may pay a price for speaking his mind about the recent developments back home.

Most prominent among Indian diplomats who have been in the same boat in which Sen found himself today was the late J.N. Dixit, former foreign secretary, who was the Manmohan Singh government’s national security adviser until his death in 2005.

Like Sen last weekend, Dixit gave an interview to a journalist, Dhiren Bhagat, in 1988. Dixit was then India’s high commissioner in Colombo and Bhagat, who subsequently died in a car accident, published the interview in The Observer of London.

It was far more explosive than anything that Sen told Aziz Haniffa, a Sri Lankan journalist with three decades of experience covering Indian affairs in the US.

Bhagat’s report from Colombo quoted Dixit revealing intricate details of India’s monthly payments to Tamil Tigers. Sri Lanka was then the most serious foreign policy issue for the Rajiv Gandhi government, which was already reeling under domestic pressure on Bofors.

Like Sen’s assertion today — disputed by Haniffa — that his conversation was off the record, Dixit’s statements to Bhagat were not meant for publication, according to one version of the controversy.

What is true is that Dixit’s revelations set off a political storm in New Delhi. Like the furore in both Houses of Parliament today.

In 1998, Dixit’s predecessor as national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra, was in the eye of a storm over a letter he had drafted, stating that China was the reason for India’s decision to exercise the nuclear option. The letter from then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to then US President Bill Clinton was leaked to The New York Times.

Foreign secretary S.K. Singh lost his job in 1990 after ill-considered remarks to the media about the Indo-Pakistan peace process at Islamabad airport during a visit.

Similarly Eric Goslaves, who was considered a shoo-in for the foreign secretary’s job was sidelined by Indira Gandhi after he was indiscreet in talking to the media in Bangkok about India’s nuclear options.

Indian diplomacy has also seen a reverse of this syndrome. Rajiv Gandhi sacked foreign secretary A.P. Venkateswaran on television after the official was suspected of undermining Rajiv’s Pakistan policy, among other things, by planting stories in the media.

Doesn't Haniffa write for India Abroad and other assorted Indian rags here.

Paul wrote:

Doesn't Haniffa write for India Abroad and other assorted Indian rags here.

Managing Editor of Rediff India Abroad

LINK

JAMAICAN REVIVAL
- A landmark in India’s engagement with the Caribbean
DIPLOMACY - K.P. NAYAR

It is difficult to believe that since Indira Gandhi’s journey to Jamaica in 1975, no Indian cabinet minister has made a bilateral visit to the largest country in the Caribbean, a region whose ancestral, cultural and traditional bonds with India define its demography and politics. But that was true until the minister for overseas Indian affairs, Vayalar Ravi, visited Kingston recently.

It is a measure of the short sightedness that often plagues South Block that in the Nineties it decided to close down the Indian high commission in Kingston as an economy measure, got the decision approved by the prime minister of that time, and then discovered that Jamaica would be soon hosting a summit of the Group of Fifteen developing countries of which India is an active member. It then went through the process of reopening the mission, which actually cost much more than the money that would have been saved so far by its closure.

That is not all. It is equally difficult to believe that in the last 60 years, no Indian minister — not even a deputy minister, in the days when the country had that now-extinct category of politicians in the council of ministers — ever visited St Vincent and the Grenadines or the Netherlands Antilles although the first Indians landed in the former in 1861. The successors of these indentured labourers now constitute a significant number of the population of St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Indira Gandhi had great sensitivity to the people of Indian origin who dominate the politics of many Caribbean states and she was not afraid to flaunt it. She also knew that there was strength in their numbers at a time when India was fighting for its place in the world, at the United Nations and through the non-aligned movement or other similar fora. But her successors generally ignored the region.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee wanted to correct this aberration and the National Democratic Alliance government invited the chairman of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (Caricom) Council to visit India. Jamaica’s foreign minister, who then headed the Council, accompanied by the secretary-general of Caricom, visited India at the end of 2003. As a result of their week-long visit, New Delhi’s relations with the Caricom were institutionalized by concurrently accrediting the Indian high commissioner in Georgetown to the Caricom secretariat. It was also agreed that an India-Caricom joint commission would be set up to streamline the diverse potential for deepening relations between India and the Caribbean. The Bharatiya Janata Party considered countries with a large number of people of Indian origin as the party’s extended constituency, but the Vajpayee government did not remain in office long enough to take its Caribbean initiative much further.

South Block returned to its familiar somnolence on this region until India was in the running for a permanent seat in the UN security council when the Group of Four countries — India, Japan, Germany and Brazil — began its campaign for security council reform. The Caribbean community is made of 20 members of whom 14 are represented in the UN general assembly. If the G-4 effort, which reached the general assembly two years ago, had been put to vote, every vote would have counted, and that was when the United Progressive Alliance government woke up to the importance of the Caribbean states.

It hastily dispatched a mere minister of state (once again) to a meeting of Caricom foreign ministers being held in Suriname in 2005. Rao Inderjit Singh, then a minister of state in South Block, brought up India’s quest for a permanent seat in the security council. He offered $1.3 million for the computerization of the Caricom secretariat and promised to honour a Caricom request for assistance in the areas of information technology, disaster management, HIV/AIDS and renewable energy. Singh further agreed to consider increasing the number of educational scholarships in India for students from the Caribbean from the existing level of 200 per year. If proof were needed that India can deliver when there are imperatives to do so, what happened in the Caribbean is an example. Against many odds, the computerization project offered by Singh was completed in just five months although it cost $300,000 more than what was projected during the visit of the minister of state.

The joint commission was to have met in 2004 and thereafter annually, but elections in India made it difficult to schedule a meeting in the first half of the year. The UPA government forgot its existence until the need arose for the votes of the Caricom countries at the UN, when Singh travelled to Suriname and promised that the joint panel would definitely hold its first meeting by the end of 2005. Once it became clear that the G-4 had become stymied at the UN, the government again lost interest in the region.

Which is why the recent visit of the minister for overseas Indian affairs can be said to be a landmark in India’s engagement with the region. In St Vincent and the Grenadines, in a reversal of protocol, the prime minister, Ralph Gonsalves, despite a broken leg, called on Ravi at his hotel. Calculating that an Indian minister from the Congress who had worked with Indira Gandhi would appreciate it, Gonsalves regaled Ravi with the story of how Fidel Castro had sent a special plane to take him to Cuba for medical treatment a few months earlier when the prime minister sustained injuries after a 10-ton truck ploughed into his vehicle. Gonsalves then drove with Ravi to the airport to see him off: when he discovered that the Indian minister may not make it in time for an appointment in Suriname, Gonsalves personally interceded with the Caribbean Airlines to reroute a flight as a special gesture to India. In exchange for all this, the prime minister had a few requests. India should open a consulate in St Vincent and the Grenadines, sign a cultural cooperation agreement with his country that would recognize traditional Indian contribution to the islands and train its civil servants.

In the Netherlands Antilles, which, like St Vincent and the Grenadines, has never had an Indian ministerial visit, people of Indian origin had numerous requests for Ravi to be taken up in New Delhi. The spate of requests reflected the long neglect of such places by South Block, although, in this particular instance, the situation had vastly improved in recent months with the arrival of a new Indian consul-general, Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha, fresh from Dubai with its challenge of a very demanding non-resident Indian population. Sinha, resident in Caracas as ambassador to Venezuela, is concurrently consul-general to the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba. He has been visiting the islands at least once a month, and the turnaround is such that the prime minister of Aruba is likely to go to India soon with offers to have Indian companies set up free zones in this constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

While the government has been sleeping, India’s unleashed private sector has been making inroads in the Caribbean, recognizing that cultural links and the presence of a large Indo-Caribbean community are assets it can bank on. The Mittals have invested $1.8 billion in a steel plant in Trinidad and Tobago where Essar Steel is setting up a plant with an outlay of $1.2 billion.

South Block’s Latin America and Caribbean division has its hands full with big countries like Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela to deal with. If the ministry of external affairs is unable to devote time for the smaller, but potentially important, countries in the Caribbean, there is a strong case for handing over these states to the ministry of overseas Indian affairs, which can do a good job of dealing with them as Ravi’s recent visit testified. But any such change in approach requires boldness and vision not to speak of turf battles where South Block will fiercely resist any attempt to cut it down to size to the advantage of another ministry.

If one notices the MEA mandrins were active under visonary PMs who knew what India's interests are. They go back to sleep under others.

I sorry. My English no too good. I like to know India foreign policy. Some India people too with USA, some against. India is still very poor country. Phillipine, Thailand and Myanmar also very poor people. India same same. Maybe even bad. What India doing? Only thinking super power?

zachs, India has enough poor people in trouble that need to be taken care of, and India is not very rich, even if some Indians are rich. India is a regional power at best. Why do you think India wants to be a super power?

India has more than a billion people -- what would you do if you were in the govt. and a billion people depended on the govt. to run things like the courts, police forces, army and navy? Don't a billion people deserve to be protected from a not-very-friendly set of super powers?

zachs, india many people, many mind. You know, democracy kind mind. English no good, no problem. Why sorry? English no you language yes? We understand. In India, no too many people speak English good. So many Indians same same to you.

Pls know forum is friendly place if you follow rules, no troll, no pretend to be something you not. Then all same same. Otherwise ban. Welcome to forum.

That was serious and funny at the same time.

See,India has more than a billion people and most of them are very poor.There's no denying the fact.Agreed.Period.

Now,just because people here are less equipped than others we can not,should not and god willing will not compromise with our ambitions.
Can we?

If we have aproblem we should look for a solution as well as move ahead with our goals and not stop and worry.Solution is not easy and of short span.But who told will be easy.

May be I'm sounding more like an idealist but that's it.

WoW JEM at his best

Welcome to birather Robinhood

Robin. Welcome to you too.

But you got to change your name, as it goes against forum guidelines. If Robin Hood is your real name, pls adjust to R. Hood or Robin H.

zachs wrote:I sorry. My English no too good. I like to know India foreign policy. Some India people too with USA, some against. India is still very poor country. Phillipine, Thailand and Myanmar also very poor people. India same same. Maybe even bad. What India doing? Only thinking super power?

zachs, welcome. Of course, if your English is bad, you will not be able to articulate well and you stand no chance in this forum to put forth your case that India is a pretender. My strong advice to you therefore is to improve your English language skills first and come back here and post this question on this forum after a couple of years or more.

In the meanwhile, during the time it takes you to learn the language, you can mull over the following facts.

While the political events led to the formation of the Indian Republic in 1950 that set the pace for democratic traditions and institutions of today, we will take a synoptic look at the nonpolitical events that have shaped the India of today. When India got its freedom, it was beset with so many seemingly insurmountable problems such as a poor economy, the wounds of a cataclysmic partition, grinding poverty, lack of health facilities, substandard and obsolete industries, illiteracy, uncontrolled and alternating famine and floods, an explosive population growth, lack of infrastructure etc. It decided to set this situation right and slowly but relentlessly and doggedly, it embarked on a programme of building a strong and modern India with Nehru's ringing words, "Dams are India's modern temples". It was not easy for a vast, impoverished and fledgeling nation with so many diversities to contend with and an innate urge for a strong democracy, to even contemplate and then execute such an ambitious programme. Added to her woes were the wars thrust on her in both the Western and Eastern borders. Within a span of 25 years after her independence, she had to fight major foreign aggression five times. It was nothing less than baptism by fire for a young nation struggling to be on its feet.

It is remarkable that in the midst of all these, the masses and leaders of India never lost their faith in democracy, however flawed its implementation might be. It is also remarkable that the powers that be in India never let forego their vision of establishing a vibrant and modern India. A conscious effort has raised literacy levels from a paltry 18% in 1951 to 65% by 2001. Even the brand of socialistic democracy that Nehru followed, for all its faults, nevertheless did result in mammoth public sector units that have significantly helped India progress. Similarly, the single-minded focus on quality higher education and scientific research has created wonderful facilities throughout the length and breadth of the country today. It has led India to master cutting-edge technologies and applications in space, aeronautics, atomic energy, IT, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other engineering and scientific spheres. So much so, that India today is a space faring nation and an acknowledged leader in remote-sensing and with a lunar mission likely by 2008. Simultaneously, in the mid 60s, India decided to banish famine from its land through a concerted effort known as "Green Revolution" leading India today to be a net exporter of food grains, with one of the highest productions of food grains in the world. Later on, this success was duplicated through the "White Revolution" in dairy and dairy-products to achieve self-sufficiency making India the largest producer of dairy products in the world. India also invested heavily in improving socioeconomic indicators that has seen life-expectancy and literacy rates improve significantly, poverty levels fall, creation of wealth increase etc. The annual average GDP growth rate for India since 1980 has been around 5.6 % and is conservatively expected to be between 8 – 9 % for the rest of this decade. It is no wonder therefore that more than 120 of the Fortune-500 companies have setup R&D centres in India and more are on the way. Significant work remains to be done in modern India still in such areas as population control, health care, elimination of corruption, inefficiency and bureaucracy, poverty alleviation, better management of natural resources and infrastructure development, but these do not take away the credit from the people and the Government of India, of significant strides as listed earlier.

Just remember that such significant success has been achieved for a population that today exceeds 1,1 Billion, roughly one-sixth of the humanity. One doesn't talk of India and most other countries in the same breath, especially the ones you mentioned.

Singha wrote:IBNLIVE:

New Delhi: A former top official of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has claimed the Prime Minister's Office was penetrated by the French intelligence.

"The greatest damage was caused by the French intelligence agency's penetration of the PMO. It had access to a large number of top secret reports sent by the R&AW and the Intelligence Bureau to the Prime Minister on their sensitive operations."

Singha-ji,

sarcastic question (although you posted an interesting article)

- what damage can possibly be caused if western government can spy on PMO?"

at most they will get the reciepe of kozhumbu or sarson ka saag

its not like during war with pakistan the enemy got info on our formation or attack plans

india's PMO is muddled with unclear policy, let the west have full audio/visual access - they will be even more confused. what damage can it pozibly cause?

Lkawamoto wrote:

its not like during war with pakistan the enemy got info on our formation or attack plans

?

During Parakram that is exactly what happened. Al Quolin Bin Powell shared satellite imagery of Indian troop movements with the Pakis. Elements of 2 Corps began moving closer to the IB, and the only way the Pakis could have known was by the Americans telling them about it.

Pakis squealed like pigs, the Americans pressured the GOI, and General Kapil Vij of 2 Corps took the fall.

LINK

Pak, US and India discussed border issue
(Hindustan Times, 24 January 2002)

Foreign diplomatic sources confirm discussions among the US, India and Pakistan in the run-up to events leading to the replacement of Lt. Gen. Kapil Vij as GOC of 2 Corps. They say that troops and tanks of the Ambala-based strike corps did not cross the International Border with Pakistan, but came dangerously close to it in the Ganganagar sector. "The matter was discussed between the US and Pakistan," the sources admitted. "We assume that the forward movement was done without orders," they added. However, the Indian Army in an official statement on January 22nd described Lt. Gen. Vij as a professionally competent officer who enjoys the complete confidence of his superiors. As part of an unofficial understanding, the Army keeps its armoured elements east of the Indira Canal, which by and large runs parallel to the border. The Pakistani armour keeps a similar distance on its side of the border.

Reports defy military logic, but strongly suggest that 2 Corps elements penetrated this buffer, moving up to a distance of just 2 km short of the border. The Indian Army has not denied the forward movement of the strike corps. Although this has to be read in the context of the current military posturing, such a position of a strike corps is interpreted as readiness to declare war. As per an understanding between India and Pakistan, strike corps formations are generally kept about 150 km away from the border. An official statement from Army Headquarters denied external pressure or directions from the PMO as reasons for the replacement of Lt. Gen. Kapil Vij. Defence Minister George Fernandes said Lt. Gen. Kapil Vij had been transferred and not removed. "Though I am not well aware of circumstances, as far as my information goes he has been transferred and not removed," said Defence Minister Fernandes when asked about shifting of Lt. Gen. Vij under controversial circumstances. However, the Defence Minister refused to elaborate on the issue.

ALSO:

Key commander was shifted at US behest
(Hindustan Times, 22 January 2002)

Lt. Gen. Kapil Vij, GOC of 2 Corps was removed from his post after the US expressed concern over the forward deployment of the strike formations under his command. Government sources confirmed that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) issued instructions that the General be shifted. Consequently, the Army asked Lt. Gen. Vij to proceed on leave. He has been replaced by Lt. Gen. B.S. Thakur, Chief of Staff of the Army Training Command, Shimla. The Army had said that Lt. Gen. Vij had gone on leave for personal reasons.

Last week US satellites picked up the movement of the Ambala-based 2 Corps of which Lt. Gen. Vij was the General Officer Commanding. The satellite images apparently showed that some armour columns of 2 Corps had moved into strike areas from their concentration areas, which are generally at a safe distance from the border. Forward movement of strike corps can be construed as a threatening stance. "The information was also made available to Pakistan. The Americans discussed the issue with Pakistan during US Secretary of State Colin Powell's visit to Pakistan last week. Following this, the US expressed its concern to India," said sources.

The US reportedly confronted India with the images. But the government apparently professed ignorance, and denied that it had instructed the strike formations to move to forward locations. "The PMO immediately asked the army to take action against Lt. Gen. Vij," a senior officer revealed. Army Headquarters complied by asking the Corps commander to go on leave. One of the three strike corps of the Indian Army, the 2 Corps is trained, equipped and tasked to launch offensive operations inside enemy territory. A strike corps has a substantial armour (tank) component. All three strike corps, including the Mathura-based 1 Corps and the Bhopal-based 21 Corps, have been mobilised in the ongoing Operation Parakram.

Sources in the army admit that it is improbable for a strike commander to issue movement orders without the approval of his seniors. Lt. Gen. Kapil Vij's immediate superior is Lt. Gen. S.S. Sangra, GOC of the Western Army Command. An Armoured Corps officer, Lt. Gen. Vij has earlier commanded 31 Armoured Division from Babina. He was promoted to Lieutenant General in June 2000, and was given command of the strike corps, a prestigious assignment. Army Headquarters said that the replacement of Lt. Gen. Vij is no reflection on his professional competence. In the current build-up, 2 Corps is a crucial formation. It was this corps which was to conduct an exercise to display India's armoured might. However, as a conciliatory measure, India has decided not to hold the exercise.

More than that was handed out as I recall.

One can assume that in any war from now onwards, the position of land forces will be known/revealed to the enemy.

Technology was with us before Kargil but was used long after the intrusion had become a full fledged war.

In the previous case also India had to work according to whims of America.

Isn't it possible that we could have refused Americans?(I hope it is not a wish full thinking)

robin hood please change your user name. Current name is unacceptable.
thanks, ramana

Sorry to break the rules of the community!
It is not intended.But you can help me by telling me how to change my name.
Do I have to make a new profile or something else????

Anything on this will be appreciated.
Thanks,

robinhood - name changed to robin

I have some questions for our fellow mates:

1) Nicholas Burns said that if IRAN behaves the way "INDIA" did even Iran will be rewarded like INDIA.
So, is the Nuclear Deal a reward for us?
Agreed that US is a super power and it’s very necessary both for our economy and security to have a more than friendly relations with US. While US is a self centered ally and its ties with India can be seen as creating a stabilizer for itself in South Asia against China ,it’s good even for India to some level.

But can't we manage to have some self respect while doing all this and not allow US (or anyone else for that matter) to walk all over us?

2) On Iran:
Do we have a permanent policy on Iran?

Last week President Putin went to Iran to diffuse some tension. A while ago Iran was India's good friend. Now what it has done to change that stand? Iran had always supported India on Kashmir Issue and asked Pakistan to stay out of it. While Indian policy was quite static on Iran we have seen a see-saw recently. India is still negotiating a gas pipeline with Iran through Pak and in the long run it will help both India and Pakistan. (Except in case of some situation when Pakistan can exploit Indian Energy security needs through the gas pipeline).We can still negotiate the Pipe line through sea. (Though to be very honest I am not sure how feasible it will be.)

Its very important not only for West-Asia and EU but for INDIA to have a stable Iran. Another situation like Iraq will be a catastrophe for all of us. Can’t we negotiate with Iran(tactically though) and manage to bring it under full IAEA norms increase its influence over Iran and manage to secure a peaceful neighborhood which is not only important for our economy as well as for our security?

3) Myanmar

As a democracy initially India denounced the military regime and supported Ms. Su Kii. Result: Chinese influence in Myanmar. Myanmar leased both the smaller and greater COCOA Island to Chinese. Which china used as a forward base as well as a listening post to monitor Indian Missile Program taking place through Orissa coast.

Then change of government and change of heart for India. In 2002-03 Myanmar allowed Indian Security Forces to chase (read hot pursuit) the NE militants deep into Myanmar territory and we were able to contain some of them. Then again flip flop. And while India was taking to much time to decide, a very crucial gas block went to China in 2005-06. As a democracy we do have a responsibility towards Myanmar but we can not neglect national interests and allow china to take leverage.

4) IBSA (India Brazil and South Africa association)

Though no questions about government’s intention and sincerity, how can we make it sure that this league will not be forgotten and left in lurch as the India, Brazil, Japan and Germany league which was started with intention of getting one permanent security council seat for each of these four league members. Now no one in the government even mentions about that Goal. I’m not sure if behind the curtain we are progressing on that front either. What steps can be taken to insure that this league (IBSA) does not meet the previous one's fate?

5) Pakistan Turmoil

How can India use SAARC to manage peace and stability in Pakistan without appearing to interfere in Pak's bloody business?


6) LTTE

What is India's current stand on LTTE?


A sudden change in policy is the only permanent feature of Indian Foreign policy. We have so many intelligent and wise people in our country but why no one is taking note of it. It will cause our friends to look another way and in the long run we will lose all of them. As kids we were told by our elders to beware of seasonal friends and maintain our integrity. I believe same thing applies to the country too. What steps can be taken so that our friends believe that we will be there in case of their need and not turn away?

PS: Everything that you can read above is my personal view on things. Though I am not much aware of what exactly is going on everywhere I have raised some questions which were hobbling my mind for long. Any small discrepancy can be attributed to my ignorance anything else is debatable. I’m all for it.

BWeek is busy running its psyops urging India to stop engaging with Myanmar generals in the vague promise of global goodwill and support
for security council seat

http://businessweek.com/globalbiz/conte ... l+business