Bharat Rakshak

Assam-Bhutan health corridor to help the poor
June 06, 2008 03:37:02

New Delhi, Thanks to a unique border corridor, Assam's poor living close to the Bhutan border will be allowed into that country to get affordable and effective medical treatment.

The corridor, a joint venture of the two governments, will also allow Bhutanese who may be looking for medical treatment in India to cross into Assam.

The border areas falling in the corridor are the Bodo Territorial Autonomous District (BTAD) in Assam and Samdrup Jongkhar in Bhutan.

Giving shape to the project is Nedan Foundation, an Assam-based NGO, which is preparing a draft proposal to be signed by border commissioners of the two countries in August.

'The draft called 'Standard Operating Procedure' will be a ticket of sort that would help poor patients from both the countries to cross the borders to access medical benefits,' Nedan Foundation director Digambar Narzary told IANS on telephone from Kokrajhar, about 700 km from Guwahati.

To prepare the draft, Nedan is working in coordination with the immigration officials, police forces and various civil society organisations of India and Bhutan.

The opening of the corridor holds immense importance for the Bodo tribals who live in areas with negligible healthcare centres.

'Bhutan has some of the best medical health centres. The corridor would greatly benefit Bodo people, who will only have to cross the border to get themselves treated,' said Narzary.

Assam's Bodo areas are infamous for diseases like malaria, tuberculosis and dysentery. Every year, almost 1,000 people die without getting any treatment.

'In recent times we have also registered 75 HIV/AIDS cases in BTAD. In such a scenario, a proper and immediate healthcare network is the need of the hour. We are hopeful that Bhutan will be more than willing to provide us help,' said an official of Assam's health department.

'Moreover, we will also extend all sort of facilities to the Bhutanese who are on the lookout to get medical benefits in Assam and neighbouring states,' he added.

Out of the four districts of BTAD, three -- Kokrajhar, Baska and Chirang -- share the 700-km border with Bhutan. The fourth district is Udalguri.

On Feb 10, 2003, the central and Assam governments and the Bodo Liberation Tigers signed a memorandum of settlement to set up a Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) in New Delhi. The area under the BTC jurisdiction is called BTAD.

The same border stretch is a vibrant trade zone. Hundreds of traders from both the countries sell their indigenous products twice a week in the zone.

'Trade ties between both the countries have always been very strong. Now we want to share our medical know how, first in the border areas,' said an immigration official of the new democratic government in Bhutan.

The India-Bhutan border was in the news during an operation the Royal Bhutan Army carried out to clear its jungles of Indian militant groups such as the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB).

'End of militant activities has helped us to work on the latest project. The Indo-Bhutan area is today free from any terrorist activities and is safe for human passage,' said Narzary.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made a two-day trip to Bhutan in May. The visit succeeded in cementing age-old political and economic ties between the neighbouring countries. It was the first visit by any Indian leader to Bhutan after the landlocked country embraced democracy in March.

Nedan Foundation works for the poor and marginalized ethnic groups living in the remotest areas of the northeastern region. The NGO is currently focusing on BTAD to empower tribal youth, women and children. It mainly works on issues like human rights, trafficking of women and children, gender equality and HIV/AIDS.

Australia: a free-thinking ally of U.S.

P. S. Suryanarayana

India remains in the shadow of cross-currents among Australia, Japan, China, and the U.S. on several issues, including nuclear non-proliferation.

Under charismatic Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Australia has turned into a new-style ‘non-aligned’ or autonomous partner of the United States. Canberra was indeed Washington’s nodding ally until the exit of John Howard as Prime Minister a few months ago.

A relevant question in this new context is whether the global political order is gradually becoming a ‘non-polar system.’ As outlined by U.S. analyst Richard Haas, ‘a non-polar world’ will be dotted by numerous powers and also non-state actors with varying degrees of real influence. These issues have come into prominence, as a result of Mr. Rudd’s vigorous visit to Japan at this time, following his recent proactive tours of China and the U.S.

Unlike Australia under Mr. Rudd, two other long-standing allies of the U.S. — Japan and South Korea, both now led by old-fashioned loyalists of America — are passing through parallel phases of domestic political uncertainty. And, the challenges of long-term political survival, facing Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, can be traced to their separate but similar pro-U.S. stances. Mr. Lee recently came under fire for having ordered the resumption of U.S. beef imports into South Korea. Mr. Fukuda had assumed office to ‘resolve’ the crisis over Japan’s logistical support for Washington in its “war on terror” in the Afghan theatre.

Now, after holding talks with Mr. Fukuda in Tokyo on June 12, Mr. Rudd said the “broad and deep” Australia-Japan relationship “is embedded in the political cultures [of] both countries.” This, in Mr. Rudd’s view, “can endure differences [like those on whaling] as in fact our relationship with the United States endures differences [such as those over its continuing occupation of Iraq].” He also noted that Canberra and Tokyo would expand their maritime surveillance exercises and draw up new “plans in relation to defence logistics” which would be spelt out later.
Trilateral security cooperation

And, on “taking forward” Australia’s existing “trilateral security cooperation” with the U.S. and Japan, he was emphatic about the need for “a practical way” that would not alarm China or any other power. Cited in this regard was the imminent possibility of a military-conducted trilateral exercise to meet natural disasters.

Important in this scenario is that neither Australia nor Japan has now sought to co-opt India. By design or otherwise, India was part of the “core group” which the U.S. organised to rush navy-driven aid to the victims of the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia. The short-lived “core group” later ‘inspired’ a Japanese proposal, under Mr. Fukuda’s predecessor Shinzo Abe, for a quadrilateral forum of Asia-Pacific democracies, namely the U.S., Japan itself, Australia, and India. Unsurprisingly, China was not amused and made its position clear. At that stage, Australia, under Mr. Howard still, did not warm up to this idea of a four-power forum.

High-placed Japanese and Indian sources have told this correspondent that the U.S. was at first very lukewarm to Mr. Abe’s proposal before reluctantly agreeing to it. [b]Obviously, Washington was not satisfied with the cost-benefit calculations behind a possible strategic expansion of the U.S.-Japan-Australia framework to include India in China’s neighbourhood.[/b] And significantly, at this moment, neither Mr. Fukuda, U.S.-loyalist with a ‘realistic’ attitude towards China, nor Mr. Rudd has cared to pick up this idea of a quadrilateral forum from the scrapheap of contemporary history. However, India remains in the shadow of cross-currents among Australia, Japan, China, and the U.S. on several issues, including nuclear non-proliferation.

Asked, in Kyoto on June 9, about the chances of his altering course and agreeing to sell Australian uranium to India sometime in the future, Mr. Rudd made the following telling comment. “I understand full well the arguments put by the Government of India, and I have had presentations on this matter from the Government of the United States about the importance of India’s particular circumstances. We are very mindful of that. However, I would remind you of where our policy stands. .... We believe it’s important to maintain the integrity of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT].”

Pledging to keep the “fragmenting” NPT intact, and without blaming India, a non-signatory, he announced his move to form an international commission on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Australia would be one of the co-chairs, and Japan was later “spontaneous” in discussing the initiative.

Diplomats in the region have noted how Mr. Rudd, widely seen as being not just friendly but really empathetic as well towards China in a big way, has now sought to make common cause with Japan on its traditional priorities. One of them is non-proliferation, especially because Japan still swears by the NPT despite neighbouring North Korea’s nuclear weaponisation, now the subject of China-hosted Six-Party Talks. The other common cause relates to climate change, given Mr. Rudd’s political passion for planet-sustaining environment and given Japan’s leadership role in this domain. As for China’s place in his worldview, Mr. Rudd had said, after his talks with the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Beijing on April 10, that “it is important to embrace this relationship.” At the same time, “we need to deal in a frank and straightforward way with disagreements when they arise,” he noted. He discussed Tibet with the Chinese leaders then; and significantly now, his absence on tour from Australia, during Dalai Lama’s visit there, is seen as a China-friendly gesture.

Expanding 6-Party Talks

On a wider canvas, Mr. Rudd has discussed with Chinese and U.S. leaders “the desirability of the Six-Party Talks being expanded into a broader security dialogue across East Asia.” And, he saw “a supportive attitude emerging” from both Beijing, a prime mover behind the talks, and Washington, a player eager to prolong its “forward military presence” in the region.

Relevant to Australia’s own regional stakes are its Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon’s comments in an interview to this correspondent in Singapore in early June. Canberra’s “U.S. alliance,” he said, “is one of the first pillars of our defence policy and will continue to be so into the future.” He also indicated that Australia would not like to see its independent ties with India and China through the “prism” of zero-sum calculations.

As a free-thinking ally of the U.S., Mr. Rudd has, therefore, proposed the creation of an Asia Pacific Community over time. He seeks to engage all the major players by making common cause wherever possible and discussing differences whenever necessary.

Considering the banner headlines on the US presidential nomination race in Indian newspapers, one would think Barack Obama was in the race for power in India! Relations with the US are, in fact, headed for a downturn should he get elected US president, come November. John McCain is an uninspiring alternative, but at least he talks of “a league of democracies” in which India is bound to feature prominently, and not non-proliferation measures that will end up hurting India that Obama is set to pursue. As far as India is concerned, the main problem with Obama is precisely his non-proliferation stance. He is for preventing states from crossing the weapons threshold and is bent on making an example of India (and Pakistan) for obtaining these armaments; verily a latter day King Canute ordering the nuclear tide to roll back.

On board the Prime Minister’s Special Aircraft, July 7: It was a throwaway line on the ways of the world that managed to reveal that India’s famously “apolitical” Prime Minister had a canny grasp of realpolitik after all.

“The world system,” he told reporters accompanying him to the G8 summit in Japan, “is not a morality play; it is a power game. Those who have power do not want to share it with others. So it is a struggle.”

He was talking of India’s case to join the powerful G8 Club as a full member but he could well have been referring to the events that had taken place back home. Nearly 11 months after his interview to The Telegraph daring the Left on the nuclear deal (“If they withdraw support, so be it”), the Prime Minister and his men were visibly buoyant at having stayed the course and won the day eventually.

And though he did not spell it out, that victory had come by waging a hard-fought power game — a personal struggle against his own party chief and a political battle against the Left.

And if he had broken bread with Samajwadi Party leaders, including the likes of Amar Singh, to achieve that objective, well — Indian politics, much more than the world system, was not exactly a theatre for morality.

But it is not domestic politics that particularly enthuses Manmohan Singh who was ready to go down on what many still regard as an issue of arcane foreign policy. It is India and her place in the world that obsesses him.

And buoyed by his success in staring down Messrs Karat and company on the nuclear face-off back home, Manmohan made it clear that he was all set to take on “the world community” in pushing India’s case for a place at the global high table.

Be it climate change, energy security, spiralling food and fuel prices or the world financial system, Manmohan made it clear that India had an opinion and would not be shy to state it.

Asserting that India would not give in to pressure to cut carbon emissions at the cost of development, the Prime Minister referred to his offer at the last G8 summit at Heiligendamm that India’s per capita emission of greenhouse gases would never exceed the “average of the developed countries and therefore if the developed countries make deeper cuts that will also be an incentive for us to move at a faster pace”.

On the issue of climate change, he said: “Our position has been made amply clear… India cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a major polluter (with) greenhouse gases. Our contribution to emissions is less than 4 per cent. On per capita basis, it is among the lowest. For us, the topmost priority is development, to solve the problem of chronic poverty…. India accepts its responsibility (to work for sustainable development) but I do not think we are in a position to take responsibility by way of international target reductions and that is the broad thrust of our approach.”

On the spiralling oil prices, the Prime Minister accused international financial institutions of not doing enough. Iterating the need to create a forum where producers and consumers can sit together and work out modalities to introduce greater stability in pricing, he said: “And I regret to note that the international community has been far less active to deal with the problem of the oil crisis than was the case in the first crisis of 1973 or the second crisis of 1978.”

On calls for the expansion of the G8, the Prime Minister said: “Most countries agree a world forum that does not include countries like China, India and Brazil is not representative or well equipped to handle global problems in an increasingly interdependent world.”

Expansion may not be on the cards now but “sooner or later the world power structures” would have to alter their ways of seeing.

The Prime Minister also pointed out that the global food crisis had got closely interlinked with the energy crisis since “a large part of agricultural crops are now being devoted to the production of bio-fuel”.

The world must “look at this new disequilibrium which threatens to create a situation that countries may solve the energy problem but there will be increasing poverty and hunger,” he added.

And finally, the economist in him called for a re-look at “the balance of power in the international financial systems” since the bulk of savings originated in Asia today and the western institutions acted only as intermediaries. “I think the world has to find ways and means to recognise this new reality…,” he insisted.

West tries to pass the buck

Amit Jetley on why India and China must resist forced emission norms

Climate change, along with the world economy and human rights, will dominate the G8 summit currently being held in Japan at the Lakeside resort of Hokkaida Toyako. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is among those invited to this meet other than the leaders of the eight industrialised countries along with delegates from Australia, Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea and South Africa. Climate change had dominated last year's G8 summit yet this year's rising interest rates as well as inflation figures may force the issue somewhat in the background. This meet also has importance as it comes about halfway to the completion of the UN millennium goals set for 2015.

Yet climate change will not be entirely put on the backburner as the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012, which lends the issue some urgency. Climatologists have warmed that this year's Summit is important as developed nations have to set reduction targets to replace the Kyoto Protocol. If an agreement is not reached, then global warming will result in a climate catastrophe before mid-century. Yet any consensus on the issue of climate change is likely to be evasive at this meeting.

There are disagreements between the nations and some of the participants are not in a position to assert themselves. Four members of the G8, Germany, Britain, France and Italy have already pledged to cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent of the 1990 levels no matter what the rest of the world does, and 30 per cent if other major powers do the same. But the United States, which also refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, insists on India and China to be held to the same standards. This is regarded as unfair by India and China for it is essentially the G8 countries that are responsible for global warming by emitting so much greenhouse gases in the last 100 years.

In fact, the per capita carbon emissions of India and China are well below that of the developed countries. Were these two countries to agree to the same level of emission cuts as expected of the US, it would adversely affect their development as well as perpetuate the disparity in the living standards of people in the rich and poor countries. India and China have rightly insisted that they would like the rich countries to commit to specific mid-term goals rather than put the onus on them.

TERROR, COME, SOON, SOON
- A strategic alliance with the US will extract its own price
Cutting Corners
ASHOK MITRA


There is no way to dodge the wages of indiscretion: Pakistan is currently in the process of grasping that lesson. It was one of the earliest countries to opt for the bondage of strategic alliance with the United States of America. Half a century later, the apparatus of decision-making, and not just in defence matters, is no longer in the control of the country’s nominal rulers. It is now too late for them to try to reclaim the sovereignty of their nation.

The fight against what it loves to describe as global terror is a total war to the US administration. National frontiers are irrelevant in the conduct of this war. As in Iraq, the much-touted invasion forces in Afghanistan too have been of little avail. The Taliban were driven out of the main towns, Kabul and Kandahar were ‘captured’ by American troops, a puppet government was duly installed. None of this has disturbed the underpinning of reality. The Taliban reorganized themselves in no time. They are once more omnipresent, here, there and everywhere, in Afghanistan. The Hamid Karzai regime has only a token presence in Kabul. Even the capital’s thoroughfares do not offer safe pasture to either American personnel or US-leaning members of the diplomatic corps though.

Emulating the Americans, the Taliban too have learnt to penetrate formal national borders; they have infiltrated, extensively, into Pakistan. Peshawar, in any case, has remained a free bazaar for AK rifles and similar other accoutrements of warfare for at least a score of years. Besides, the growth of indigenously nurtured anti-American sentiment has been inevitable in the wake of the US administration’s grand declaration of the resolve to obliterate Islamic terror. With every emerging story of American atrocities in Iraq or Afghanistan, emotions surge a little further in Pakistan. The entire country is now not far from being a cordial reception centre for eager beaver Taliban zealots. Scratch a Pakistani mind: one half of it leans in the direction of liberal democracy and the lure of material comforts snuggling up to Americans can supply, the other half is ideologically identified with the Taliban and jumps in joy as tidings reach of Americans receiving a bloody nose in any part of the world.

The Americans, for understandable reasons, are not prepared to put up with this kind of situation. As Pakistanis slowly feel their way towards establishing a functional democracy, strategists work overtime in Washington DC, to take cognizance of the new realities unfolding in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad; Peshawar perhaps has long since been written off as a lost cause.

Why flinch from facing facts — most Pakistanis would like to turn a Nelson’s eye on Taliban infiltration into their territory. Some latent sympathy for the Taliban cause apart, they do not quite grasp the rationale of fighting other people’s war. The Americans at the other end are not prepared to put up with any defiance of the covenants of the strategic alliance sealed long years ago. They have a number of ‘advisory’ kind of military and air force installations on the soil of Pakistan. Once convinced that Taliban hordes have crossed the border and are operating from within Pakistan, they cannot be deterred from launching a merciless counter-attack without caring a bit about Islamabad’s susceptibilities. Pervez Musharraf could be Pakistan’s all-power dictator courtesy Foggy Bottom; Ten Per -cent Zardari has recently been installed as the country’s president again only after his name was cleared with the US administration. Both civil and military authorities in Pakistan may, for the sake of form, post squeaky protests against American violation of their national sovereignty. They, however. know their protests are for the birds. The Americans mean business, and they are conversant with the fine print of the strategic alliance. It is again a historical process that has taken over. Give or take another five years, Pakistan would be as indescribably devastated a land as Iraq or Afghanistan is; global terror calls for global annihilation.

And that is not going to be the end of history. The nuclear deal India’s prime minister has struck with the US president is only a beginning. It will matter little whether in New Delhi the regime is a motley coalition headed by either the Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party, the strategic alliance will take its own course. The local subedars will have to fall in with the official American will and endorse perceived American interests as their own. As the years roll by, Talibani penetration into Pakistan is bound to be increasingly more overt. Pakistan will become a replica of Afghanistan — a squalid no man’s land, but on a vastly larger scale; the Taliban’s suicide-bomber squads will compete for superiority with American air and land strikes. Before Indian authorities are even aware of what is happening, advance Taliban units could start operating along chunks of the Pakistan-India border, from the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir down to the Gulf of Kutch. Firmly ensconced in the American camp, New Delhi would not be able to afford not to accept the proposition of global terror being synonymous with Taliban terror and the enemy of the US ipso facto the enemy of India. That is what strategic alliance is about.

Anticipating the sequel is child’s play. Since, by virtue of the strategic alliance, the Taliban would be India’s declared enemy, they could be relied upon to return the compliment. They would now feel no compunction to infiltrate across the Pakistan-India border and set up clandestine dens, let us say, in and around Surat, in and around Amritsar, in and around Doda. India’s official security outfit has been vigorously promoting the thesis of local militants having intimate links with external agents. It would then very nearly be a case of demand creating its own supply; those disgruntled over Kashmir and the demolition of the Babri Masjid would join ranks with the Taliban.

In these circumstances, helmsmen in New Delhi might, on account of domestic political reasons, adopt for some while a Janus-faced stance; the Americans would suffer from no inhibition. They would plan and launch counter-attacks against the Taliban in right earnest from Indian soil, not bothering to take prior sanction from the Indian authorities; the approval would be taken for granted.

Such is the non-enigma of an entente struck between unequal parties. The interpretation of its content by the superior party is what counts. Official American eagerness to enter into alliances of this nature has always been based on the hope of increasing the effectiveness of the war against the global enemy. Fifty years ago, the Soviet Union was that enemy, now it is the Taliban. Once the strategic alliance is safely tucked in, India can hardly avoid being turned into an actual theatre of the global war. That is what transition from non-alignment to alignment spells. The explosions that shook New Delhi in mid-September are only a curtain-raiser. Having demurely subscribed to the catechism that an adversary of the US is our very own adversary, we have to make ourselves ready for enactment of grisly terror in our backyard on a permanent basis. Like revolution, global war against terror is no garden party. And it is going to be a far worse situation if we invite the terror to come and be our guest.

In these circumstances, helmsmen in New Delhi might, on account of domestic political reasons, adopt for some while a Janus-faced stance; the Americans would suffer from no inhibition. They would plan and launch counter-attacks against the Taliban in right earnest from Indian soil, not bothering to take prior sanction from the Indian authorities; the approval would be taken for granted.

India is a necessary friend to carry out parallel interests: Dr Henry Kissinger

http://www.indiainfoline.com/news/inner ... 5296&lmn=1

India Infoline News Service / Mumbai Nov 20, 2008 11:34
Dr Kissinger emphasized that a foreign policy has to begin with objective necessity and that irrespective of the variations in foreign policies, national interest can not be invented.

I greatly respect India's foreign policy. It has been extraordinarily consistent throughout governments", said Dr Henry Kissinger Former Secretary of State (USA) and 1973 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate at the interaction organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in Mumbai.

Dr Kissinger emphasized that a foreign policy has to begin with objective necessity and that irrespective of the variations in foreign policies, national interest can not be invented. "There is always a certain rhythm followed in a country's foreign policy", commented the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Terming the beginning of America's new administration as challenging, Dr Henry Kissinger said that it was a turning point in the history of America. "The enthusiasm of the younger generation is commendable and this election has created a new approach to racism".

Commenting on the challenges faced by the new administration, Dr Kissinger said that one of the biggest issues that will affect the region is to promote a non partisan approach. "The foreign policy to be followed would depend on the conviction of the degree to which America can change the domestic structure of every part of the world", stated Dr Kissinger.

Talking about the Indian and American relationship Dr Kissinger stated emphatically that its relationship has been uniquely close throughout the decades. "India and America has been a steady and a close partner and in dealing with big problems both the countries can work together and among China, India and America, the future foreign policy will be more significant and complex."

While addressing issues on terrorism, Dr Kissinger expressed that countries like India and America, in their foreign policies, should identify those key areas of cooperation and jointly work together to combat this global meanace. Better lessons could be learnt from the existing cross border relations of the two countries to nurture overall peace and harmony.

Calling Dr Kissinger's visit as a great opportunity, R Gopalakrishnan, Executive Director, Tata Sons Ltd said that as every other country, America also has its own challenges and issues and that a huge challenge before the new President Elect of America would be to mould its foreign policy in these critical times of economic upheaval.

Nayak wrote:
Dr Kissinger emphasized that a foreign policy has to begin with objective necessity and that irrespective of the variations in foreign policies, national interest can not be invented.

In effect India has given its sovereignty to UN.
...
It shocked me that the Indian navy and the govt had to seek permission from the UN to pursue pirates.

Delhi has formally been given permission to act under a UN resolution allowing navies to pursue pirates into Somalia's territorial waters.

Ramana wrote: Are Dari speaking people of Afghanishtan Shia?

Jaspreet wrote:

In effect India has given its sovereignty to UN.
...
It shocked me that the Indian navy and the govt had to seek permission from the UN to pursue pirates.

An uninformed statement designed to incite jingoist sentiments.
What the BBC article really says is:

Delhi has formally been given permission to act under a UN resolution allowing navies to pursue pirates into Somalia's territorial waters.

Note that India didn't need UN permission to send its warships to Gulf of Aden or to sink the pirate mothership.
This UN permission is only so Indian navy can enter Somali waters. Why is there anything wrong with that?

Reforms in IFS are most welcome
By Inder Malhotra

AT long last, after a great deal of cogitation and debate, and with the approval of the Union Cabinet, a five-year plan for comprehensive reform, reorganisation and revamping of the Indian Foreign Service is ready for implementation. The core of the project is to double, over the five-year period, the IFS’ existing strength of 620. Of the extra hands, as they are recruited and trained, many more would be posted to the ministry of external affairs in New Delhi than would be sent to embassies in need of strengthening or new missions that might have to be opened.

In an age of grinding economic crisis and financial crunch, the proposed expansion of the Foreign Service may appear extravagant, especially because since the Fifth Pay Commission, a decade ago. the government has been committed to downsizing the bureaucracy and to avoid creation of new posts. But the need for a big increase in the strength of the diplomatic service is genuine and should be obvious. For a country of India’s size that also is major actor on the international stage — India is always included in the six powers that prop up the present world order, such as it is — a larger Foreign Service is surely necessary. (The other five are the United States, the European Union, Russia, China and Japan.)

Yet, India’s Foreign Service is among the smallest. That of Brazil is four times its size and China’s is seven times larger. The ration of officers posted at the headquarters to those deployed in diplomatic missions abroad is abysmally inadequate.

For instance, one territorial division, headed by a joint secretary, looks after as many as 23 countries. In a "better off" division one joint secretary, assisted by one director, two deputy secretaries and three under-secretaries, deals with three countries of such crucial importance as Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

In any rational arrangement, there should be a joint secretary in charge of each of these three countries, with someone above them, an additional or special secretary, supervising the region. The plight of the eastern division — in charge of China, Japan and the two Koreas — is not much different. Of the rest, the less said the better.

Of course, a mere quantitative expansion would be of no avail, if there is no corresponding increase in the quality of work. All the recruits to the service, like those to other all-India services, come through the competitive examination and are selected by the Union Public Services Commission. Moreover, everyone selected by the UPSC has a right to choose the service he or she wishes to join. Time was when those on top of the list used to opt for the IFS. But that has become a thing of the past. The powers of the IAS and the possibilities offered by the Indian Revenue Service have been more attractive.

Incidentally, the present pattern of recruitment is causing a problem in the South Block. Quite a few recruits who opt for the Foreign Service each year know very little English because they appear in the UPSC examination in Hindi and other Indian languages and are from schools and colleges where the medium of instruction is their mother tongue. Even at present the MEA has been sending such probationers to the Foreign Service Institute for special training in English. But this arrangement would need to be both enlarged and upgraded as the intake of officers increases.

A more important decision included in the five-year plan relates to training in foreign languages. Up to now this country, like others, was using in the realm of diplomacy the languages that are adopted by the United Nations. Because of the great and growing importance of the neighbouring countries, Pushtu, Darri, Tibetan and Myanmarese (Burmese) are being added. An essential feature of the plan to make the IFS more effective is that for the first 12 years of his or her service an officer would be posted only to those countries where the language of their choice is spoken. This reform is vital, and one can only hope that it would indeed be adhered to.

In the past, four officers specialising on China and fluent in Mandarin were posted, one after the other, as ambassador to Algiers. In several other cases, after the very first appointment in their careers, officers were never sent to areas of their specialisation.

The doubling of the IFS’ strength also has a flip side from the point of view of those joining it. Competition for promotions, especially for rising to the top jobs, would be much harder. The number of foreign countries is unlikely to increase, except marginally. To be an ambassador would, therefore, be doubly difficult. Also there would be only one foreign secretary though the number of secretaries might increase. The authors of the reform plan have also decided that no one who hasn’t had three postings in the country or countries that comprise the area of his or her specialisation can become joint secretary, and without having served as a joint secretary at the headquarters no one would be appointed ambassador. More imaginatively, at every stage of promotion, there would be a test as well as a refresher course.

Nothing, however, can be perfect. There are some shortcomings also in the Foreign Office’s reform plan. The most distressing of these is the refusal to resurrect the MEA’s Historical Division. The abrupt and inexplicable abolition of this useful institution many years ago was a disaster. Failure to being it back to life is catastrophic. Apparently, decision-makers feel that the functions of the Historical division can be outsourced, in bits and pieces, to think tanks and the groves of academe.

Ironically, at the time of its abolition some of the Historical Division’s functions were transferred to the Policy Planning Division (PPD) that, unfortunately, has been a pointless fifth wheel of the coach. The plan’s authors have regretfully concluded that nothing can make the PPD effective. Why have it in that case?

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has indicated to the External Affairs Ministry that key diplomatic appointments to Washington, United Nations and Pakistan should be left to the new Government after the general elections.

...
The Prime Minister apparently conveyed to the MEA that as these three appointments are crucial to foreign policy, these should be decided by the next government. This means that New Delhi will not have a High Commissioner in Pakistan for at least three months because the new government is likely to be sworn in by late May. Going by present trends, current Foreign Secretary Shiv Shanker Menon and Indian Ambassador to Germany Meera Shanker are front-runners for the jobs in Washington and New York.
...

At a time when all its energy is focused on post-Mumbai diplomacy with Pakistan and the world, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has been hit by a cybersecurity nightmare.

Sources have confirmed to The Sunday Express that “several” of its over 600 computers have been infected by “spyware,” a programme that surreptitiously gets installed on a computer to track or take control of the user’s actions.

A detailed investigation is on to determine the damage as initial reports suggest the spyware is linked to a server located in China. Sources said the computers affected include those in the Ministry’s sensitive Pakistan section and in the offices of senior Secretaries and Joint Secretaries.

....

Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran’s speech at the India Habitat Centre lecture series last week left many foreign policy experts puzzled. Saran, a special envoy of the PM on the nuclear deal, seems to have second thoughts about the pro-US tilt in our foreign policy. But, it was Saran, himself, who played a major role in shaping the policy. Saran declared that “India needs to be geared up for a more diffused and decentralised complex international landscape, with the US enjoying significantly diminished predominance”. Saran believes India needs desperately to hedge its foreign policy in view of the Sino-US strategy convergence, as the US is embarking on an unprecedented diplomatic offensive to co-opt China in its economic recovery. And in the bargain is willing to accommodate China’s regional and global ambitions.

Acharya wrote:

Anujan wrote:
The chinese chose the route of accumulating reserves and it has essentially become a "who blinks first" game. The amri-khans on the one hand can threaten that if the Chinese offload their dollar reserves, the dollar would tank and be useless for the chinese anyway. The Chinese can threaten that thats exactly what they would do and tank the American economy.

I will try to change your thinking. What if China and US are both in this game and will screw the rest of the world. They can create protectionist trade barrier from other countries and trade between themselves.

The dollar will not be allowed to tank since they will make sure that other currencies will tank and dollar will become the currency of stability. They will coerce and create wars to tank other currencies.

RaviBg wrote:The prime minister's SCO dilemma

The diplomat believes that India's presence is "long overdue". India is the only country which is not represented at the level of the head of government. He adds, "For India, the last five years were a chronicle of wasted time. All serious powers were readjusting their relationships in the last 4-5 years."

Acharya wrote:

RaviBg wrote:The prime minister's SCO dilemma

The diplomat believes that India's presence is "long overdue". India is the only country which is not represented at the level of the head of government. He adds, "For India, the last five years were a chronicle of wasted time. All serious powers were readjusting their relationships in the last 4-5 years."

Blind men of Hindoostan

Blind men of Hindoostan

So how do we see, as of now, the rest of South Asia behave towards India, whom they view as the "elephant" in the region? In three main ways.

One is the "pilot-fish" behaviour, an expression used by the Scandinavian Erling Bjol to describe post-World War attitude of Finland towards the USSR. It implies keeping close to the shark in order to avoid being eaten. Bhutan and Maldives probably fit the bill. According to the 1949 Treaty of Friendship between Bhutan and India, Bhutan's foreign policy was to be "guided" by India. In 2007, Bhutan managed to renegotiate a change to the treaty, particularly that requirement, perhaps as a reward for conducting operations against Bhutan-based anti-Indian insurgents.

In Maldives India had earned the gratitude of former president Gayoom by propping him up against coup attempts. No major change is expected under President Nasheed.

A second way is by making itself difficult to be overcome militarily by India. Pakistan has chosen to follow this route by acquiring "minimum deterrent capability" through its nuclear arms and ever expanding arsenal. However, analysts have argued that this situation creates a state of equilibrium that provides scope for stable relations. But for India, non-state actors in Pakistan, such as the Taliban and other Islamists, remain a source of anxiety. This understanding, buttressed by US pressure, appears to be leading Islamabad toward some positive action, something that Delhi will factor into the relationship.

The third way is by seeking to live "in concord with but distinct from" India. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal appear to be choosing this path. With Bangladesh's new Awami League led government of Sheikh Hasina there are some shared values with the Congress in terms of secularism, modernisation and market orientation, which should help bilateral relations. Yet, there persists in Bangladesh, including its very vibrant civil society, some deep-rooted suspicions of India. These involve issues of water-sharing, transit, non-trade barriers on the part of India, and unresolved maritime boundaries. They must be addressed. More work will need to be done by the Indian leadership to restore confidence in Indian actions among the common Bangladeshis.