Christopher Sidor wrote:Borrowed strength is fragile. If India depends on others, especially those of US, we will be dumped unceremoniously once we have outlived its utility. And for American support we will have to pay a price somewhere else. For example the Indo-US Nuclear deal, was all about bringing India into the non-proliferation fold or giving access to India to those technologies which were denied to it. In return we were placing 18 of our domestic nuclear plants into perpetual safeguards. In the middle the deal took a turn, where we were forced to vote against Iran at IAEA. It is an academic exercise, but India would never have voted against Iran or would have abstained, if the Indo-US nuclear deal was not there. Same would happen with this Indo-American military alignment . We will not be able to isolate the military alignment with America to only PRC.
In the next two-three decades, China is not going to remain static. And the prospectus for its decline are rather remote.
India's strength is India's strength. Anything extra is something extra.
India would follow some curve of development of national power. At any point on this curve, what is important is to make decisions that one thinks, takes India further on a trajectory of empowerment.
Decisions were made on IUCNA and the vote against Iran, to arrive at something which a section of Indian establishment felt were essential for India's rise. They negotiated and they reached a compromise with USA. The general feeling was of course, that we did not negotiate hard enough. But it is equally true, that without any compromise, the USA would not have taken India out of the dog-house in which we had allowed ourselves to be maneuvered. Iran vote was part of that compromise. This was not the first strategic loss, even if it is seen to be a loss.
We have bungled many times - Partition 1947, Kashmir 1948, Tibet 1950, Indo-Chinese War 1962, Tashkent 1966, Simla Agreement 1971, Delayed Nuclear Testing 1974, Article 370, ....So IUCNA is still a small strategic loss in comparison, if at all.
Any suggestion in favor of a military cooperation between India and USA to contain China, is not to be interpreted as favoring India giving away the keys of its strategic analysis, policy and strategy to USA.
At the moment India is still too weak militarily to act as an equal military partner to USA, so I too would not suggest entering any sort of military alliance with USA. Secondly China is also not in a position to command preeminence in Asia. Even today, USA is the foremost power in Asia. So there is not hurry for India to enter into an alliance with USA prematurely.
In the next 20 years the strategic landscape in Asia and the world would look different, and then it could be advisable for India to rethink its distance from USA.
Saying that India is there only to be taken for a ride by the USA, is a bit simplistic. Of course, USA is not to be trusted. Strategic Games are of course played with an open mind. I think India has outgrown the mentality of 'all weather friendships'. In fact how America pushes around its allies, is the reason, why I don't want India to go too close to USA before we can withstand US pressures on us.
Christopher Sidor wrote:America's withdrawal from Asia will not be bad thing. In fact it will compel india to focus on things that are important, namely out growing the paki-centric approach and thinking big term. Something similar happened in the period 1962-1971. We basked in the umbrella of american protection against China. Assuming that if push came to shove we could always count on the yanks. Then came 1971, and we were rudely awakened from this delusion of ours. America teamed up with china to threaten us. Our so called protector was teaming up with our biggest threat. They, i.e Americans, even indirectly threatened us with the nuclear option. We had the backing of the soviets then, but wisely the then Indian leadership realized, that the soviets would not get involved in a nuclear conflict with US over India. 3 years later india exploded its first nuclear bomb.
Not many people appreciate of what happened in 1971. It was as if the most important event of 1971 was victory over pakistan and birth of bangladesh. It was not. We did not test our nuclear capability after 1962. We did not feel compelled to test our nuclear capability after 1964, the year when china tested its first nuclear weapon. We did not test our nuclear capability before the 1971 war. But after it.
One cannot outgrow the region just because we think we want to. India would have to deal with the regional problems as well. Secondly one of the reasons, India is not being allowed to move on to the world stage is simply because, China would not let India do that, and would use all means to its ends, including Pakistan, nukes, insurgences, etc.
Thinking big is not enough.
Christopher Sidor wrote:We are currently living in a delusion similar to the one which we lived through 1962-1971. America is there to contain China. We will help America to balance china and so on. Last time our delusion was shattered, i.e in 1971, the soviets were there. Next time our delusion will be shattered, we will be all alone.
As mentioned by me above and also in the
Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II Thread, I don't think India is there as yet to forge a military alliance with USA. We will need another 20 years or so, before India becomes ripe for such a role.
Christopher Sidor wrote:We do not need to go head-to-head against PRC in all the fields. Just on things that are important. With US withdrawal from Asia, Irans power will rise dramatically, while that of the saudi arabia's, uae, etc will decline dramatically. With this decline, Pakistan's one important leg of support will be gone. Then pakistan will be whole solely dependent on China. We can have a deal with China, Taiwan for Pakistan.
With American withdrawal, some countries in asia will buckle under china, like korea, mongolia and taiwan but certain others like vietnam and possibly japan would become nuclear and full fledged powers. We would not be alone in Asia.
I think, it is delusional to think that China would take away its support for Pakistan, if we give them Taiwan. We have no locus standi on Taiwan. It is almost already theirs. Of course Pakistan at some point in time would cease to be the factor holding India back, but that would not be a gift from China.
I'm afraid PRC is not going to start behaving because Japan, Vietnam or India tells China to do so, regardless of whether we are nuclear armed or not.
Only as long as a power is in the neighborhood that can fatally threaten PRC, there is a chance for it to display good neighborly behavior. You take away this power, and PRC would be unleashed on Asia.
In 1962 we made a mistake in judging that PRC would not attack India. I think you are suggesting something similar on those lines here. You are being overly confident that China is contained, that China will not start going aggressively after all its interests in Asia, at the cost of other countries in Asia, that India can push back China in Asia.
The fact is nobody in Asia really can keep China on a leash. Nobody can guarantee Chinese good behavior and adherence to the norms of international conduct. At the moment only America can. They have a reason to. They don't want to lose their preeminent position in the world. The other country in the region has the balls to counter China, not even collectively.
Christopher Sidor wrote:We should not forget, that Britian was hardly a super power, when it defeated the spanish armada. But once the spanish armada was defeated, Spain went into a decline and the british setup their own empire. Ironically the British empire was the 2nd empire on which the sun never set. The first such empire was the spanish.
Yes the Brits played their cards well. Asking USA to leave Asia right now, is in my view, not playing one's cards well.
