Indian Foreign Policy

[gunjur]

Apologies if already posted

Bramha Chellany: An insecurity trap of India’s making

We can no longer evade the question why countries inimical to our national interest treat us with impunity .

Have you thought of why India faces unending cross-border acts of aggression while persisting with a process of dialogue and peace building? Is it merely because India has scofflaw neighbours? Or, can at least part of the blame be pinned on India’s pursuit of a foreign policy driven by neither pragmatism nor statecraft?
Take the challenge from Pakistan, a country 1/13th India’s size economically: After suffering each attack since the late 1990s, India has had the same debate, largely centred on the merit of staying put in the process of talks with Islamabad. Few ask the real questions: How many more attacks is India willing to bear? Is there no limit to India’s patience? What has outraged the country over the two recent back-to-back Pakistani acts of aggression—the suicide raid on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad and the ambush-killing of five soldiers along the Line of Control (LoC)—is more the government’s meek response and prevarications than the attacks themselves.

A key plank of Pakistan’s jihad strategy is deniability. Carry out an attack, deny involvement, keep India engaged in talks to serve as a continuing cover, and execute the next attack. This strategy can fool no one. But India’s political class is so corrupt and compromised that it has little time to look beyond self-interest.
Indian leaders are very protective of their own interests. Indeed they have an over-inflated view of themselves. Their hard-headedness in serving personal interests contrasts with their faint-heartedness in shielding national interests. If they had spent just a quarter of their time on their primary duty—protection of national interest—the country wouldn’t be in the mess it is today, with the economy sinking, national security under siege, and pessimism reigning.

The foundation of India’s weak-kneed foreign policy was actually laid between 1999 and 2004 by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who executed more policy U-turns than probably any other prime minister since independence. Vajpayee’s roller coaster policy on Pakistan exacted a major toll on institutionalized policymaking, exposing India’s inadequacy to set and unwaveringly pursue clear goals.

Under Vajpayee—who also surrendered India’s Tibet card in a 2003 Beijing visit—personal rather than professional characteristics defined foreign policy. His shifting Pakistan stance traversed through Lahore, Kargil, Kandahar, Agra, and Parliament, before culminating in Islamabad on his second trip to Pakistan as prime minister. It was Vajpayee’s 2001 Agra invitation that helped Pervez Musharraf to come out of the international doghouse for staging a coup.

In an operation with no parallel in modern history, the Indian military was kept in war-ready position for 10 months, ostensibly to force Pakistan to dismantle its terrorist infrastructure. Yet, without accomplishing any objective, Vajpayee called off the costly, self-debilitating operation, which the then Navy chief later labelled the “most punishing mistake”. Worse still, Vajpayee during his 2004 Islamabad visit hailed as a big gain Pakistan’s commitment on paper to not let its territory to be used for cross-border terrorism—the very assurance Musharraf had given before Operation Parakram began.

Vajpayee’s swinging policy pendulum emboldened his successor, Manmohan Singh—a foreign policy greenhorn—to pursue a blinkered approach that blended naiveté with appeasement, thereby inviting greater acts of aggression against India. Mistaking tactics for strategy, he has treated the process of engagement with Pakistan (and China) as an end in itself, losing sight of the purpose—putting an end to acts of aggression.

Singh’s fixation on quasi-failed Pakistan has paralleled Vajpayee’s quest to make peace with that implacable enemy. The Vajpayee and Singh eras will also be remembered for the corruption in public life, with scandals at times sought to be deflected through peace-building with Pakistan. A famous son-in-law in each of the two eras came to symbolize unbridled corruption.

Is it any surprise that personal and not professional characteristics have shaped foreign policy for almost 15 years now? This trend marks goodbye to institutionalized policymaking.

Singh, of course, has taken appeasement to unmatched levels. In 2006 at Havana, he equated the exporter of terrorism with the victim of its terrorism, setting up the infamous and now-defunct joint anti-terror mechanism. Three years later at Sharm el-Sheikh, Singh included Baluchistan in the agenda—grist for the Pakistani propaganda mill that India was fomenting the insurrection there. This blunder also allowed Pakistan to externalize the Baluch problem by turning its terrorism target, India, into the principal accused.

Even the savagery last January, when Pakistani troops chopped two Indian soldiers and took away one severed head as a trophy, failed to stop Singh from returning to business as usual with Pakistan, in spite of his own promise to the nation that it won’t be business as usual. The result is that Singh’s constant engagement of Pakistan has yielded uninterrupted Pakistani acts of military brutality and terror. In fact, the worst acts of cross-border aggression have occurred during Singh’s stint as Prime Minister.

Instead of dictating terms to Pakistan, India allows it to retain initiative. Each time India is caught by surprise, it does little more than react passively. Whereas Pakistan’s India policy has remained consistent for long, India’s ad hoc Pakistan policy continues to inflict self-injury.

Make no mistake: India has fashioned its own insecurity trap. To break out of it, it must pursue a clearheaded, goal-oriented foreign policy focused on an assertive promotion of national interests. That process can begin only if India stops looking at inter-country relations through rose-coloured glasses and establishes professional policymaking.

More or less its given that no congress government will come out of nehru syndrome. Can bjp led government come out of both nehru and ABV syndrome??

[Vipul]

External Affairs minister of India Khurshid(Dumbshit)praises Sridevi efforts in popularising English.

Awkward moments included an impromptu speech by Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid who decided to speak about Sri's efforts to popularise English.

The Dumbshit thinks what she did in a film role is what she did for real!!!!!

[devesh]

Chellany is increasingly going senile. the == is illogical. there is no parity between the "scams" of NDA time and UPA. anybody who says so is blatantly lying or simply has no brain capacity.

[gunjur]

Indian global diplomacy - Debate on RajyaSabha TV.


Though debate is on global diplomacy, most of debate is mainly on sub-continent countries.

There are lot of debate videos of Rajya Sabha TV on youtube. As most of participants are former diplomats, gives a "official" viewpoints along with "soft secular" approach .

[ramana]

After the UPA, the Ministry of External Affairs should be renamed as Foreigner Ministry.

So far Mr Wig and Mr Khurshi* have been excellent Foreigner Ministers in India.

[Austin]

The big question is whether India has an independent Iran policy at all, which is not subject to American blackmail and pressure tactic.

Tehran shows preference to China

[ramana]

Dear Friends:



The following article by a former Indian diplomat says, among other things, that:



"India ….. with a stake in regional stability, has every reason to be concerned. The GCC countries are India's principal energy and trade partners, a major source for investments and joint ventures, and, above all, home to over six million Indians who send to their country over $35 billion annually. India also has substantial energy and economic ties as also strategic links with Iran, particularly in respect of its interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia."

All this is very true.

However, taking a historical perspective, the Middle Easterners (from the Arab world to Afghanistan) were responsible for ravaging India and partially destroying Indian civilization starting from the 8th century in Sind** and continuing the nefarious task in the rest of India even more savagely from the end of the 10th century till the arrival of the British. The latter, of course, played their own villainous role in adding to India's misery, though, one could argue that if the British had not come, with the defeat of the Maratha power in the third battle of Panipat in 1761, the ravages begun by the Middle Easterners might well have continued until this day with Indian civilization totally destroyed and replaced by a Pakistan or some such embracing the whole of what is now India!



Any way, the point I am making is that the Middle Easterners are getting a bitter taste of their own historically destructive medicine which they had forcefully administered in the centuries past into an unwilling India (and, if I may add, an unwilling Europe, especially Spain from which they were fortunately expelled in the late 15th century by Ferdinand and Isabella)! And the miracle is that INDIA STILL MANAGED TO SURVIVE THAT HOLOCAUST!! If the Middle Easterners now have a death wish, nothing in the world, JUST NOTHING, is going to save them!!



Ram Narayanan



** According to Wikipedia, the army which departed from Shiraz to conquer Sind in 710 CE under Muhammad bin Qasim had 6,000 Syrian cavalry and detachments of mawali from Iraq.







http://www.rediff.com/news/column/the-a ... 130830.htm



The Arab Spring withers into winter

August 30, 2013 11:43 IST



Its promise has fallen short before the onslaught of the votaries of the old order and ruthless extremist forces, notes Talmiz Ahmad.

A little over two years ago, the Arab Spring swept the landscape of West Asia and North Africa with the promise of freedom, democracy, social and economic justice and, above all, dignity. In 2011, four despots who had ruled their countries, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, for several decades, were dethroned in quick succession, and free elections took place in some countries. Thus, at the end of 2011, while political and economic problems remained, there was a sense that the WANA countries would now shed their exceptional character as the last bastions of autocracy.

Today, however, the West Asian scenario is marked by: a two-year-old civil conflict in Syria in which over 100,000 people have been killed and over three million have been displaced; in Libya, competing warlords, divided on clan and tribal lines, control different enclaves; in Tunisia, the elected Islamist government is under growing domestic pressure; and in Egypt, the elected government of President Mohamed Morsi has been ousted in a military coup and former president Hosni Mubarak has been released, while Morsi and the leadership of the Brotherhood face incarceration.

The Al Qaeda and its affiliates have discovered new opportunities for penetrations into Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, and recently in West and Northwest Africa as well. The promise of the Arab Spring is withering before the onslaught of the votaries of the old order and well-armed and ruthless extremist forces.

The causes of the failure of the Arab Spring are complex. The Spring had alarmed the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council who felt that their political, economic and cultural order, founded on royal prerogative, patriarchal patronage and familial and tribal loyalties, was threatened by two challenges: one, a strategic and sectarian challenge from Iran, and the other from within the regional religious and political order, the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Brotherhood has its moorings in the Sunni Salafi tradition, but, unlike the quietist Wahhabiya of Saudi Arabia, it is activist in orientation, with a platform and a committed cadre equipping it to seek power. Over the previous 50 years, its intellectuals, fleeing from persecution in Egypt and later Syria, had found sanctuary in a number of Gulf countries where they had influenced at least two generations of young people with programmes founded on Islam, imbued with a strong anti-West content.

The Brotherhood, and its underground affiliates in some countries, is seen as a challenge to the monopoly on religion and power of the GCC regimes.

In response, the GCC countries led by Saudi Arabia have shed their traditional quiescent, moderate and low-key approach, and are confronting these challenges head-on. It is possible that the coup in Egypt was effected at the initiative of the armed forces to save the country from polarisation and political and economic malaise due to Brotherhood misrule. Still, the GCC has welcomed the ouster of the Brotherhood and offered substantial political and economic support for the military regime. The Saudi ruler has publicly chastised the US for its dithering and has asserted that the GCC will stand with its Egyptian brothers in case Western aid is cut.

Though Saudi Arabia is confronting Iran across the Western Asia theatre, the competition is principally taking place in Syria. Iran has a long-standing strategic alliance with the (Shia) Alawite regime of Bashar Al-Assad, even as, through Syria, Iran has also nurtured the Hezbollah in Lebanon, a formidable Shiite political and military force in the region.

But, in Syria, the situation does not have a simple Saudi Arabia versus Iran dimension. The opposition militias in the country consist of a non-religious group, the Free Syrian Army, made up of defectors from the national force, which is backed by Saudi Arabia. The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood have their own militias, till recently supported by another GCC country, Qatar, but which are anathema to the Saudis.

The third force is made up of lethal Al Qaeda affiliates, frequently in conflict with the Syrian army as well as the other two opposition forces. All the fault lines in West Asia -- religious, sectarian, ethnic, Islamist, and big power divides, are at play in Syria, leaving the nation shattered and in danger of splintering into warring enclaves.

India, along with other countries with a stake in regional stability, has every reason to be concerned. The GCC countries are India's principal energy and trade partners, a major source for investments and joint ventures, and, above all, home to over six million Indians who send to their country over $35 billion annually. India also has substantial energy and economic ties as also strategic links with Iran, particularly in respect of its interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Hence, the GCC-Iran divide and the ongoing contentions in Syria and Egypt are alarming. These competitions could escalate into a region-wide conflict, if Israel were to persist with its aggressive postures against Iran, while Iran, Russia and even China would oppose an active US role in the Syrian imbroglio. All of this will have deleterious implications for India's (and Asia's) energy and economic interests, aggravating the current economic problems.

India can counsel prudence and restraint, but for now initiatives for moderation are unlikely to have any influence. With Brotherhood elements going underground and initiating a campaign of subversion in Egypt; with Iraq and Syria imploding under sectarian violence and external machinations, and the Kurds, inspired by revanchism and pursuing a sovereign territorial unity, the stage is set for major political upheavals that could redraw borders across West Asia and victimise thousands of people in religious and sectarian conflict and ethnic cleansing.

The Arab Spring is dying in the West Asian quagmire.

The author is a former diplomat. His book, ‘The Islamist Challenge in West Asia’, will be published in September 2013

Talmiz Ahmad

Source: http://im.rediff.com/money/pix/bs.jpg

The Arab spring was a mirage.

[Rony]

When we talk "middle easterners" ravaging Indian civilization in the past, i think we need some clarity.

Most of the barbarians who ravaged Indian civilization in the past were Central Asian Turks ( Khiljis, Tuglaqs, Timurids (mughals) ) or Turko-Afghans (Ghorids, Gaznavids). Even the "persian" Nadir Shah was a Central Asia Turk.(Not that the persians were any less barbarian.But because after battle of qadisiyah in 8th century, the persians thrmselves lost their country to Arabs and later to central asian turks. In pre-Islamic times we had many barbarian persian incursions ).After the defeat of Arabs by the Gurjara Pratiharas in 8th century, there was no Arab threat to India ever .

Indians always had issues with the barbarians from central asia and persia(which itself has repeatedly been invaded from central asia) but the Arabs are always low in terms of actual invasion threat.Not because they were pious and good towards Indians but because they did not have capabilities and logistics. They became a (ideological) threat only after the Anglos established the Saudi monarchy and other Gulf monarchies who started exporting radical islam in 20th century for their survival sake.

[svinayak]

When we talk "middle easterners" ravaging Indian civilization in the past, i think we need some clarity.

Most of the barbarians who ravaged Indian civilization in the past were Central Asian Turks ( Khiljis, Tuglaqs, Timurids (mughals) ) or Turko-Afghans (Ghorids, Gaznavids). Even the "persian" Nadir Shah was a Central Asia Turk. After the defeat of Arabs by the Gurjara Pratiharas in 8th century, there was no ARab threat to India ever .

Indians always had issues with the barbarians from central asia and persia(which itself has repeatedly been invaded from central asia) but the Arabs are always low in terms of actual invasion threat.Not because they were pious and good towards Indians but because they did not have capabilities and logistics. They became a (ideological) threat only after the Anglos established the Saudi monarchy and other Gulf monarchies who started exporting radical islam in 20th century for their survival sake.

Now all of them have the same view of the rest of the world and Indians.
After 1960s the middle east has been propped up with a global image.
This has changed their world view and the vicious violence we are seeing now is spread deeper inside their society

[Shanmukh]

When we talk "middle easterners" ravaging Indian civilization in the past, i think we need some clarity.

Most of the barbarians who ravaged Indian civilization in the past were Central Asian Turks ( Khiljis, Tuglaqs, Timurids (mughals) ) or Turko-Afghans (Ghorids, Gaznavids). Even the "persian" Nadir Shah was a Central Asia Turk. After the defeat of Arabs by the Gurjara Pratiharas in 8th century, there was no ARab threat to India ever .

Indians always had issues with the barbarians from central asia and persia(which itself has repeatedly been invaded from central asia) but the Arabs are always low in terms of actual invasion threat.Not because they were pious and good towards Indians but because they did not have capabilities and logistics. They became a (ideological) threat only after the Anglos established the Saudi monarchy and other Gulf monarchies who started exporting radical islam in 20th century for their survival sake.

Now all of them have the same view of the rest of the world and Indians.
After 1960s the middle east has been propped up with a global image.
This has changed their world view and the vicious violence we are seeing now is spread deeper inside their society

I am not so sure, Acharya-ji. There is a significant fanatic part which subscribes to this view (a monolithic Muslim world against the EEEEEVIL others), but especially in Iran and Iraq, there is a segment that has a genuine desire to come to terms with India. And they are struggling to discover their own place in the world. They do not wish to be dictated to by Mullahs and they subscribe to an Islamic identity, because it is the only one they know, but especially among Persians, I see a great reverence for Zoroastrianism. Not sure if it can be revived at all, but there is a feeling that it is theirs, and must be preserved. Further, the greatest accomplishments of Persia came under the pre-Islamic Zoroastrians (Achaemenids, Parthians and the Sassanids). Islam has brought nothing except misery for most of its reign, and most rulers were not even Persians. This, by the way, is one reason why they have a great love for the Safavids - because they helped differentiate the `cultured Persians' from the `lizard eating Bedouins' and why the Persians are so stubbornly Shia. There is a great desire to separate themselves from the Arabs and the Turks. As I said, I am not sure if this can be fanned into a pro-Zoroastrian move, but the feeling that they are more cultured, and they should not be grouped with the other Muslims is something I have observed.

[Rony]

This, by the way, is one reason why they have a great love for the Safavids - because they helped differentiate the `cultured Persians' from the `lizard eating Bedouins' and why the Persians are so stubbornly Shia.

Safavids turning Iran to shia has more to do with the Ottomans than with the Arabs. Safavids too like Mongols and the Seljuk Turks before them were from Central Asia who invaded Iran.Seljuks went on to Turkey and became the Ottomans. Safavids had huge inferiority complex when it came to Ottomans.They feared assimilation from the Ottomans since both of them trace their origin to common ancestral region and common religion -sunni islam. It is this fear of Ottomans that made Shah Ismail to convert to Shia to distinguish himself from the ottomans. The conversion of Iran from Sunni to Shia was as brutal as conversion from Zorastranism to Sunni Islam before. Shia ismail conveted and ensured the rest of the iranians converted too.

Now a days the Iranians are busy re writing history for obvious reasons claiming Safavids to be from Iranian kudistan as opposed to Azeri Turk.

[ramana]

He says that America learnt early in its history that it must NOT fight its neighbours - EVER!!. That is the secret to its ability to project its power beyond its own neighbourhood.

You may take it to the Indian Foreign Policy thread.

However, it takes two to tango. In our case, India never picked up fight with Pakistan or China. What do you do when attacked ?

Even then, I would say that India fought its neighbours only as a last resort and after absorbing body blows and even at the cost of losing its territory to its enemies. This timid Indian response has only gotten worse year after year since Independence. So, I do not understand what you are saying here ? That India should be timider & softer than what it already is ?

US had wars with many of its neighbors. The guy is smoking something strong to suggest such faslehoods.

For example Canada was a target in the war of 1812 and palns to invade Canada were only removed just before WWII. War with Mexico is a regualr one. Most of Western US was war trophy from Mexico. Even just before WWI there was war with Mexico.

We know the Spanish-Amercan war already noted.

Then there are wars with Nicaragua and Panama. Not to mention the raid on Haiti to retore Aristid.

India did not chose to go to war with its neighbors. On the other hand war was thrust upon India repeatedly by Pakistan and China.

[ramana]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130901/pers.htm
Indo-Pak relations: New beginnings, old endings?by Raj Chengappa

With so much ground having been covered on the subject of India-Pakistan relations I approach the subject with trepidation. Everyone knows the outstanding issues between the two countries: terrorism, Kashmir, trade, Siachen, Sir Creek, water and visas. The solutions to these have been discussed threadbare, both at the official level and by think-tanks like the Jinnah Institute. Yet today we apparently seem no closer to solving them than when I first started covering Indo-Pak relations under dramatic circumstances in 1990.This was when war threatened the sub-continent again. I was with India Today then and analysing the outcome of such an imminent battle by interviewing experts. I was surprised when General Krishnaswamy Sundarji, who had retired by then as Chief of Army Staff, used the interview to send a message to Islamabad that India was ready to massively retaliate if Pakistan ever launched a nuclear attack. To recall, as tensions mounted, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Yakub Khan had met the then Indian Foreign Minister, IK Gujral, and apparently threatened a nuclear strike if war broke out. This incident resulted in the infamous Robert Gates mission from the US to bring down temperatures.Manmohan Singh should talk to Nawaz in the US. The cost of not engaging is high for both countries as it would send wrong signals to the world, which would be detrimental to both. If India doesn’t want to engage directly with Pakistan then busybodies like the US and UN would come forward to be interlocutors.Today, even though there is no immediate threat of a war, relations between the two countries have deteriorated rapidly in 2013 over a series of border incidents and ceasefire violations that have shattered the hard-fought tranquillity agreement reached a decade ago. The season of hope that Nawaz Sharif ushered in when he was elected Prime Minister in May by promising a “New Beginning” with India, has dramatically and inexplicably descended to one of despair, anger and hostility with Parliaments of the two countries losing no time in passing resolutions condemning each other for the violence on the Line of Control (LoC). The two armies continue to exchange fire on a daily basis on the LoC.The sense of déjà vu is overwhelming as the pendulum of relations between the two countries continues to oscillate between two extremes with metronomic regularity.
Start & stop
Now on issues like terror and Kashmir, it is back to default positions, as it is for Siachen, Sir Creek and trade, even though a new government is in the saddle in Pakistan. The hardliners are out in India, saying that Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, shouldn’t even talk with Nawaz Sharif, his counterpart, in New York in September till Pakistan shows credible progress in reining in terror elements and speeding up the trial to convict the perpetrators of 26/11. To sum up, India and Pakistan have moved from fighting, to fighting and talking, then fighting about fighting, then talking about talking, then talking and fighting and now back to talking about talking.The title of my lecture “New Beginnings, Old Endings?” ends with a question mark, and is not in the affirmative. Unlike Stephen Cohen, who has titled his new book on the India-Pakistan conundrum ‘Shooting for a Century,’ I do not believe that it may take till 2047 for us to live peacefully together. That I am afraid would be too late. In all likelihood we would have annihilated ourselves either through our nuclear weapons or by disintegration into warring states built on ethno-linguistic and religious lines — reverting back to the times preceding British rule.In the brief but dismal sweep that I presented on relations between the two countries, it is not as if progress has not been made. I would rather look at the glass as half full than half empty. There are visible signs of thaw. There are now trains and buses moving across the borders with regularity. There is trading going on across the Kashmirs and Punjabs. There are more cultural exchanges and people-to-people contact than ever before.
In the new century, there is both a new India and a new Pakistan that instead of repeating history can change its course and thereby their collective destinies. I have as yet not given up hope that our people will enjoy the dividends of such a peace.The big questions, though, remain. Many of these are dependent on the big shifts in power structures that the two countries have experienced or have been experiencing recently: Would Nawaz Sharif 3.0 rule be different from his first and second versions as Prime Minister? Would UPA-II get another chance as UPA-III, as Sonia Gandhi hoped recently? Or will a BJP-led coalition or a Third Front consisting of a motley crowd of regional parties capture power in the 2014 General Elections? What then are the implications or prospects for peace between India and Pakistan?To come to the first question: Does India think Nawaz Sharif 3.0 would be any different? On the day of the elections, Nawaz Sharif invited me for breakfast at his house in Raiwind. Despite being in the eye of the electoral storm, he remained super-cool and confident of winning. Over a meal of plenty of fruit and cups of kahva, he outlined his priorities.For Nawaz Sharif the biggest challenge was the dismal state of the Pakistan economy. The other big issue he said was internal security in his country, pointing out 40,000 lives had been lost to terrorism. When it came to relations with India, he told me, “We need to pick the threads from where we both left them in 1999. That was a defining moment and I think we will have to start the journey again from the same point.”
On the issue of asserting the supremacy of the civilian government over the army to ensure the past was not repeated, Nawaz Sharif’s reply was guarded but firm: “If all the institutions adhere to the Constitution, nothing will go wrong with this country. We have all learnt that lesson. My party firmly believes in the rule of the law and adhering to the Constitution and judiciary.”Will Nawaz 3.0 work?
Nawaz 3.0 was laying out his priorities in a vastly different environment than what his first two terms as Prime Minister were. In his first term between1990 and 1993, Nawaz 1.0 was the army’s choice with right wing support as Prime Minister. He focused, as he claims, on ushering in economic reforms that India “copied”.. But then there was the disastrous Kargil campaign, the coup and his ignominious exile to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. As he told me when I met him in Jeddah in 2004 for his first major interview, “Vajpayee said that I had stabbed him in the back and he was absolutely right to think so. But then he did not know that my own general had stabbed me in the back.”When I met Nawaz Sharif during the 2008 election, despite him having been in exile the PML-Q did surprising well and returned as a major force. Sharif was clear then that he wouldn’t topple the PPP-led government, though he did pull out from the coalition soon after. As Opposition leader, he did keep his word. Shahbaz Sharif, his younger brother, performed exceptionally well as Chief Minister of Punjab as the recent polls had affirmed. Nawaz 3.0 is certainly wiser, telling me the lessons of life have taught him “humility” and “to be a go-getter”. I believe that Nawaz Sharif is sincere and in his relations with India he would like to exorcise the ghosts of Kargil that must be haunting him.Meanwhile, it’s been a little over two months as Prime Minister and clearly Nawaz Sharif is struggling to assert himself. When David Cameron asked Sharif what his three top priorities were after he was sworn in as Prime Minister, he said, “Number one the economy, number two the economy, and number three the economy.”
When I interviewed Sartaj Aziz in May, the day after Nawaz Sharif’s victory, the former Pakistan finance minister told me that for the first time in Pakistan’s history its growth rate was below 3 per cent, down from the average of 5 per cent for the first 55 years. Compounded by a yearly population growth rate of 2 per cent, there was hardly any increase in per capita income. Worse, the previous government’s irresponsible fiscal management had seen the total debt balloon to (Pakistan) Rs 13 trillion. Now debt servicing consumed 50 per cent of the tax revenues.If Pakistan has to meet its developmental objectives, it would have to attract loads of foreign investment or borrow heavily from the International Monetary Fund or privatise its loss-making public sector units. Or, do all of the above. It would require an internal situation that is stable and for investors to feel safe. For that peace with India would be an obvious imperative. Yet inexplicably we have seen relations with India deteriorate after Nawaz Sharif has come to power.The Sharif government has been having a torrid time handling the internal security situation, with terror attacks or incidents of sectarian strife happening every day. The law and order situation in Karachi has descended to precarious levels. Sharif had told me he would secure Parliament support for a “multi-faceted and multi-pronged approach” to deal with internal terror groups and extremist elements. It is early days as yet, but it is apparent that more than Parliament he would need the backing of the armyBy far Nawaz Sharif's biggest challenge is to assert the supremacy of his civilian government over the Army and also take an activist higher judiciary along with him . India has viewed the escalation of incidents on the LoC as a sign of the Pakistan Army asserting its turf in the new balance of power that is emerging. The army, according to analysts, is proclaiming its supremacy over foreign policy and internal security issues and wants Nawaz Sharif to concentrate on the economy and deliver there firstThe feeling among top Indian functionaries was that the Pakistan Army was not keen on Nawaz moving forward on relations with India at a quicker pace. That could partly explain why the new government has cooled off with regard to granting India the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status, . Nawaz Sharif is also said to be close to the right wing parties and Hafiz Saeed operates out of Punjab, the state Nawaz’s PML-Q governs, with impunity.India is concerned with the lack of continuity in terms of foreign policy whenever there is a regime change in Pakistan. During Pervez Musharraf's rule, India had invested a lot on back-channel talks between its interlocutor, the sagacious Satinder K. Lambah and Pakistan's Tariq Aziz. A near agreement was reached on the Kashmir question but on this issue also the new Pakistan government claims it has to update itself on the talks. Indian analysts hope that it means the new government wants to put its own stamp on key issues but would move forward on them.The silver lining for India is that Nawaz Sharif has maintained a politically correct approach, expressing sadness at the incidents on the border and maintaining in his letter to the Indian Prime Minister on the eve of Independence Day that “I look forward to our meeting in New York to discuss issues of mutual interest. It is our desire to turn a fresh page in our bilateral relations.”In a recent interview with a British newspaper he used a similar metaphor when asked whether the army was on the same page as he was concerning relations with India and internal security issues. He said, “We’re all on one page. There’s only one page and that is the page of the Government of Pakistan.”While Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the ISI are seen by India as the mastermind of the recent LoC machinations, there are those in Pakistan like former army chief General Jehangir Karamat who feel that the army has changed visibly in the past five years. There is little doubt that Kayani has restored the prestige of the Pakistan Army after its credibility took a severe beating during the final years of Musharraf’s reign and the humiliation over the killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistan’s territory. Importantly, the army allowed a civilian government to complete its full five-year term and make way for a democratic transition — again a first in the country.The Pakistan army is no longer seen as a government in waiting and Karamat sees the chance of another coup in future as receding. Nawaz Sharif has recently talked of formulating such a strategy and has constituted a Cabinet Committee on National Security which he heads to work out the framework and implement it. The outcome will be watched keenly, as it would indicate the new balance between the civilian government and the army.
Indian experts though remain sceptical about whether the army has truly reformed itself and will be content to play second fiddle to a civilian government in matters of foreign policy and internal security. As one Indian expert told me, “All this talk of waiting for a stable civilian government is hogwash. We all know that the army calls the shots and it has been a stable organisation for decades.”

While these remain the concerns of India, the current UPA government has other major issues to worry about that prevent it from making any big moves towards Pakistan. .Meanwhile, with the splitting of Andhra Pradesh into two states, the UPA government finds itself in a pickle. Maoist rebels continue to strike with disconcerting regularity, as the ‘Red’ menace continues to be the biggest internal security threat that the country faces despite Central and state government efforts to rein it in. And after a couple of years of peace, there are worrying signs of unrest in Jammu and Kashmir that again point to a Pakistan hand.For the UPA government, the prognosis is not good, with recent opinion polls showing that they will be voted out of power in the next General Election in 2014. But then nor do these give the BJP a majority despite the rise of the controversial Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Indications are that India may end up with a ragtag coalition that is unlikely to be stable or focused.This would also be at the back of Nawaz Sharif’s mind as well as the Pakistan army as it contemplates re-looking at relations with India. Nawaz Sharif may think it not wise to invest too much in the UPA government and may decide to wait till there is political clarity after the 2014 General Election. India did the same by hitting the pause button till the results of the May 2013 General Election in Pakistan. While Manmohan Singh continues to push for good relations with Pakistan despite the recent LoC incidents, his hands are tied because of the weakness of the UPA coalition and the strident opposition from the BJP and other parties, which makes a political consensus for bettering relations with Pakistan difficult at the moment.
Despite all this, I believe that Manmohan Singh should talk with Nawaz Sharif in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. I disagree with the 40 Indian experts who signed a statement that there should be no talks till Pakistan delivers on containing terror and brings to book the 26/11 perpetrators as it would be seen as a “sign of appeasement” and “weakness”.The cost of not engaging with each other is high for both countries as it would send all kinds of wrong signals to the world that would be detrimental to both. If India doesn’t want to engage directly with Pakistan then busybodies like the US and UN would come forward to be interlocutors. Also at an international forum like the UN it would look odd if India refused to speak to Pakistan, as it would only exacerbate concerns that the two are back on the brink of war, which may dissuade foreign investors from coming in. Talks though may end up with Manmohan Singh reiterating India’s concerns about terror to Nawaz Sharif, with very little forward movement on other key issues like trade.
Restore tranquillity on the LoC
But they are clear that for significant progress they would first like the new Pakistan government to ensure tranquillity restored on the LoC apart from significant forward movement on the 26/11 case and visible efforts to rein in the terror groups, particularly those led by Hafiz Saeed. Pakistan must understand how angered and anguished the Indian people feel about the lack of a speedy trial and punishment for the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. The Indian approach, as I understand it now, is “Verify and then Trust” rather than “Trust and Verify.”I would now like to narrate a few anecdotal incidents that illustrate the forces that would drive the narrative in future and why it is imperative that the two countries make peace with each other. When I walked across from the Wagah border to the Pakistan immigration complex on Wednesday the imperatives were obvious. I was bathed in sweat in five minutes as there was no power and the few fans that creaked only added to the humidity. At the immigration desk, there were two young lady officers, who processed my visa and when they heard I was giving a talk at the Jinnah Institute, one said, “Why are we at each other’s throats again? Please push the cause for peace between the two countries.”
On the five-hour drive from Lahore to Islamabad, I couldn’t but help notice how similar our cultures were. I had driven from Chandigarh to Amritsar, crossing cities that evoke nostalgia among Pakistanis — Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Kapurthala and, of course, Amritsar. When I entered Pakistan, I found that the landscape was similar, probably a little greener here, given Lahore’s extensive canal systems.On the way, we stopped for a meal short of the turning to Sargoda and the dhaba too had no power — they had a battery back-up for a music player that belted out deafening Punjabi songs, much like the Indian dhabas. The menu was similar, though the food was cooked with more oil on this side of the border. The Punjabi spoken here was no different, including the swear words! There were flashy SUVs that people on both sides of the divide like to show off when they commute.My taxi driver, Nadeem, a 26-year-old, had the same query as the immigration officers — why don’t relations improve between the two countries so that we could help each other develop. He rattled off the Indian movies he had seen, including Chennai Express that has just been released in India, his favourite actor being Nana Patekar and the role he played in the movie on the 26/11 attack.
Nadeem said his grandmother talked nostalgically of how Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony before Partition and participated in each other’s festivals. He wanted to know if Indian roads were as good as the motorway we were driving on and said he was very keen to visit India, lamenting that he had no relatives on that side of the border to sponsor a trip for him.
ne can ask: Are these two conversations relevant to the topic on hand? Yes — because both, the young immigration officers and Nadeem, are in many ways representative of the new, young Pakistan that is emerging. Like in India, they have become a substantial demographic bulge in Pakistan’s population statistics. Of Pakistan’s 180 million, close to 67 per cent are below 30 years of age — the group which Nadeem and the immigration officers represent.Pakistani scholar Mooed Yusuf, who did an analysis of youth surveys in 2011, found that they opined that it was inflation and unemployment that topped the list of the single-most important issue facing Pakistan. Terrorism came in a distant third. Polls in India have come up with similar results, where the young, which constitute a majority of the population, talking of rising prices and job availability as their biggest concerns.
Since both countries have sizeable domestic markets and an exploding middle-class, it makes sense for them to ensure that trade among themselves and in the region expands considerably. Consumers would get cheaper goods and the respective domestic industries would grow, providing more jobs, thereby becoming a win-win for both countries by tackling the two most important issues: prices and jobs.Nawaz Sharif himself voiced such an opinion in a recent interview when he said. “The money wasted in defence should have gone into social sectors. It should have gone into education; it should have gone into health care. And I hope that both countries realise the mistakes that we have made. I think the main objective of making peace with each other is to get rid of all that.”

Mansha also pointed out, “Please try to remember that every time trade is opened up between countries, it is the smaller country that benefits — in Mexico, Canada and Europe we have seen the same thing, as with India and China. So the impression is not correct. I feel that we need to compete more in the interest of our consumers, and maybe we can get Indian partners. We could get investment from India too.”He was even willing to do business with Gujarat as he was impressed with the way Narendra Modi runs the state, saying, “I am one of the few people who advocate looking at Gujarat. Mr Modi has done a miracle with an 11 per cent annual growth rate. I would suggest we learn what they have done there. Some day maybe, if certain concessions need to be given to Pakistan, and Mr Modi is the Prime Minister, chances are he would be in a position to give more concessions because he has always been viewed as a hardliner.”Business first, disputes later.The other argument that experts in Pakistan put out is that if business ties improve with India, as does people-to-people contact, then the Kashmir issue would become blunted and diluted. Today China is one of India’s largest trading partners with trade having grown to $ 66 billion last year. India and China continue to have skirmishes and tension on the border, but are able to deal with it more maturely.The other incident that stayed in my mind was when I was asked to talk to students of Aitchison College in Lahore when I visited Pakistan in 2011. The students didn’t ask me questions about enmity between the two countries and the Kashmir dispute. Instead, most of them wanted to know how India made its economy grow in the 1990s. I had to tell him that India faced much the same situation as Pakistan faces today. There was sectarian strife, the economy had tanked and there was little expectation from a coalition government. But that gave the impetus for India to boldly go ahead with reforms, and the rest is history. In the young, Pakistan now has the constituency to launch a major economic reform process and I think there is no one better than Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to do this.The mass protests in India over corruption and the recent rape incidents are indicative of how easily public opinion can be galvanised, as was indicated in 2008 in Pakistan when the lawyers went on strike and brought Pervez Musharraf’s regime to the brink. We saw how social media fuelled the Arab spring and how Wikileaks exposes shook the US and governments across the world.The Net-worked age

More importantly in the sub-continent, grandmother tales of Partition, doctored history in textbooks and traditional media reports on strife will recede as the main source of information for the new generation. The big change that the Internet highway has already brought to our lives is instant connectivity anytime, anywhere and anyplace. Info-tech icon Nandan Nilekani terms it “the death of distance”. It is also the lifeline of the young who connect to the world wherever they may be.The boundaries that nations so assiduously built around them are steadily and rapidly being dismantled. Each of us has multiple identities: our physical self, the ones we keep for our office and our virtual identity on the Net. When Winston Churchill talked of the “empires of the future” being “the empire of the minds”, the Internet didn’t exist. But Churchill’s words are becoming reality. It is a revolution that is happening in fast-forward and will influence the discourse and narratives on key issues that determine our life and relations between countries as a new age of enlightenment unfurls.
I: Yes, how stupid can we be? For India and Pakistan, it’s time for new beginnings and an end to old endings.

Chengappa is an establishment news guy. Recall his tirades on VK Singh. FOr him to bring in division of Andhra Pradesh into a foreign policy article dealing with TSP shows there is total disarray in UPA govt.


His premise is incorrect. Badmash is old school dyed int eh wool jihadi. For him to launch any economic reforms he has to win jihadi raid on India and claim victory to get legitimacy in TSP. So all the better to be on watch.
The problem is India alwasy right after 1947 wanted new beginnings but Paksitan is under double burden of pre-Mughal imperium and British martial races hogwash and wants old endings with drinking tea in Lal Quila..

On the other hand its the right wash for the Paki hogs.

[ramana]

quote="Lalmohan"
the grand strategy is based on the concept of us being a benevolent big brother and making concessions to our litte brother neighbours so that we don't frighten them. however, whatever actions we do or do not take leave our neighbours suspicious of our benevolent intent and so the cycle continues. net net, we keep ceding ground

I think there is no understanding of grand strategy. Its more like tactics without a strategy.

Yes. Our foreign policy vision has been limited very narrowly to just Pakistan and China at times and we have been very reactionary to every situation in the recent past.

I wish we had an assertive foreign policy to follow.[/quote]


Grand Strategy has to be defined by national goals and objectives.

Without clear cut objectives and goals strategy flounders.

As long as INC is a viable entity in India there wont be any national goals and objectives vis a vis power and survival.
Reason is the nature of their founding. They are brown EIC in India. They got to rule India provided they allow Pakisatan to exist and China to rise.

The social contract with the INC has broken down repeatedly (Emergency and now the tidal wave of mal-governance) and people are confused as to how to react.

[Atri]

Indian Foreign Policy for Dummies – I

so true...

Non-Alignment: You were once rich and naïve. You were travelling in a train with all your riches. A classy and rich looking dude comes and sits next to you. You like him; he is white. He offers you a biscuit, you eat it, but the biscuit’s drugged; he loots you, makes you his slave; tells others that you are his prettiest slave. Every day, you wish you hadn’t eaten that biscuit; then he lets you go. You hate biscuits now. You hate strangers now. You are scared of strangers now. You close the doors, shut the curtains, stay home and tell everyone to leave you alone. You make tea and convince yourself that you are good enough to be anything you want and it is your choice to sit at home and watch TV.

Panchsheel: Basically five pricinples, (1) Don’t trust strangers. (2) Don’t take biscuits from strangers. (3) Make your own biscuits. (4) Be nice to everyone but don’t make friends. (5) Dream of a world where biscuits are not drugged

China: The class bully; was your best friend in nursery; you cried when teacher beat him, but he saw you as the teacher’s pet. He pretended to be your best friend, but one day pulled your shorts down in front of girls. You were humiliated but could do nothing about it. You want to build muscles and one day take revenge, but you were too poor to buy protein for muscle; and too afraid to ask others (remember the drugged biscuit?)

C was also poor. C saved and almost starved himself to death so he can eat full meals later, but realized his folly. He is more pragmatic and cunning, so he went to richer people and did their work in return for chicken and eggs. He bulked up; he did more work and ate more eggs. Then he owned poultry. He traded eggs for iPods, became the cool and popular rich kid. Your stomach hurts because of jealousy, and also because you haven’t eaten in many days. You give him a condescending look and feel superior. Now he makes cheaper iPods, buys guns, bullies you. You reach out to your senior A in school, upload a picture with him on FB (in return for doing his homework) to show you are friends.

America: That guy in the senior class who only likes you because you do his homework. You like him because he is popular, rich, a hit with the ladies, has a pretty sister, lives in a big house and lets you in sometimes. You wish you were him; you also like him because he can bully any other bully. Lately, you started wanting to be friends with him because drugging biscuits is sort of illegal now.

But now he has more juniors who can do his homework; and he plays with C on the school cricket team. They are starting to hang out together, but A is in a run of bad form, while C is the new star of the team. C might be made captain soon. A is starting to get worried. He offers to pay for your coaching so you can become a better player, and displace C as the star of the team. But you are too fat, and too lazy. You blame it on your extra toe, and climate change and what not. You don’t mind being friends with A but you don’t want to trouble C, so you play cricket on the computer.

Russia: Another senior in school; once the philosopher and guide of C but later parted ways. Likes you a little because you once praised him at a party in front of all the parents and teachers; hates A. You love him. He gave you new pencils when no one else did; he sold you his old pencils for cheap. He once bullied both C and A. You love him also because he is selling you a fancy refurbished compass box. You want to become best friends but he finds you boring. Enjoys hating A; loves making A look like a fool.

Pakistan: The pretty girl you love to hate to love to hate. Once joined at the hips, both of you parted ways on a very bitter and acrimonious note. She harbours a grudge against you for keeping one of the crown jewels but as with all failed relationships, it goes beyond that. You still have feelings for her of a very complex sort, and take her abuse in your stride. She flirts with others, including C, as if to spite you, and has just come out of a very passionate and tempestuous, if not abusive, relationship with A. She always spurns your well-intentioned offers to let bygones be bygones and start afresh. The last time you offered to kiss and make up, she poured salad on your face in front of everyone and stabbed your feet with her sharp stiletto. Maybe, she will come around eventually, you hope. With women, you can never tell. Meanwhile, you just grin and bear it, sadly shaking your head as you watch her make a mess of her life.

[ramana]

Very apt description.

It applies only as long as the dilli billi stranglehold on Indian society...

[RamaY]

INDIRA, REVIVED By N.V. Subramanian

New Delhi: Of all the Indian prime ministers, Narendra Modi has most to learn from Indira Gandhi in the conduct of foreign policy, which joined with the silken touch of Atal Behari Vajpayee could bring extraordinary results. Continuity with Bharatiya Janata Party traditions demands the invocation of Vajpayee’s name every so often, but Modi seems truly Indira Gandhi’s worthiest inheritor in many ways, and that could be the best thing to happen to the country in a long while.

There cannot be the smallest reservation that Indira Gandhi made India into a regional power. The victory in the 1971 Bangladesh War erased the ignominy of 1962, and it made the Indian Army a feared force in the sub-continent. The 1974 first nuclear test, the absorption of Sikkim, the consolidation of the island territories, the space programme, and so forth, marked India’s arrival as a regional power. Every leader has only so much dare and genius, and whilst Indira Gandhi severed the eastern from the western half of Pakistan against great odds, she left the sore of Punjab-dominated Pakistan festering. It is up to Narendra Modi to cauterize the wound, and walking down the path of Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh cannot be calculated to give the greatest confidence to the country. Appeasement is not the course. It never is.

With respect to China, there were steps that Indira Gandhi took, but they were of an indirect nature, for example, the annexation of Sikkim, which prevented the establishment of a Chinese bridgehead, although the 1974 nuclear test may also be counted, even if it was primarily directed against the United States’ policy of regime change after its revealing intervention in the 1971 hostilities{So USA tried to do a regime change on India in 1970s}. All in all, Indira Gandhi persevered through the peak of the Cold War surrounded by hostile American allies, and she achieved wonders given the parlous state of the national economy.

Almost no prime minister subsequent to Indira Gandhi has advanced the country’s power status as much, although with the second nuclear test, Vajpayee did push India into the big league. But it did not come without its tactical blunders, one of which was the irresponsible utterances of Lal Krishna Advani and Madan Lal Khurana, implicitly taunting Pakistan for its non-nuclear disposition. It was inevitable that Nawaz Sharief would follow suit, although his army chief,{Who was that?} at least according to the media, was urging him not to go nuclear. Politics won out.

This writer remembers arguing with someone in the Advani group in the home ministry not to scorn Pakistan so openly. Imagine the asymmetric advantage to India with Pakistan stuck with conventional weapons, regardless of the certainty of prompt and quality non-nuclear American replenishments to corral them. There would have been some pain for India initially, and the pressure to denuclearize immense for a short period of time, but the future gains were colossal. It is likely, of course, that Pakistan would have tested without Indian sledging, but it doubly ensured it, and worsened the crisis. This writer still believes the situation could have been handled with finesse and tact. But by not doing so then, the perils of nuclear Pakistan are on plain exhibition today.

Didn’t Vajpayee see this coming? Possibly he did. But his government nevertheless handled the post-Pokhran-2 phase badly, and it compares indubitably poorly with Indira Gandhi’s deft management of the reactions after 1974. Sanctions came in both cases, but Indira Gandhi did not panic. To hold your nerve in a crisis constitutes leadership, and Indira Gandhi proved the best. She has to be Narendra Modi’s guru. And it won’t do to mouth platitudes apropos fraught Indo-Pak and Sino-Indian relations. The world does not run on platitudes, however much it appeals to the incestuous Delhi establishment. Narendra Modi has to break away from the mould, personify change in every speech and action, or else what is the point of electing him prime minister? A dunderhead like Rahul Gandhi would do, surely.

Admittedly, Narendra Modi cannot appear too different on the campaign trail, and he has to be seen to represent continuity with change, which includes repeating Vajpayee’s name like mantra. It is understandable. But it cannot be the real thing. Before all hell breaks loose in the mainstream media that this commentary somehow reflects Modi’s inner thinking, it cannot be farther from the truth. This writer has no access to Modi and his thoughts. As is also well-known to NewsInsight readers, this writer keeps a great distance from political leaders, and that includes Modi. But Modi, plain logic dictates, simply cannot go down the trodden path. Ten years of Manmohan Singh’s genuflections to Pakistani and Chinese leaders have brought no peace on the borders, and predictably made it worse. Do we want more of the same? This writer most certainly does not.

States mustn’t take one another for granted. It is as bad for marriage as it is for inter-state relations. States must not lay all their cards on the table either, or bare their weaknesses. It is fatal. That is the blunder Britain and France made faced with Hitler’s resurgent Germany. It led to Munich and war. Mikhail Gorbachev showed a degree of circumspection in his negotiations with the United States (although he didn’t escape criticism) but the certified alcoholic, Boris Yeltsin, dismantled the Soviet Union at a pace that proved nearly disastrous for its salvage. It is only now, after years, and under Vladimir Putin, that stricken Russia is slowly beginning to flex muscles against America. India has become a punching bag for China and Pakistan because of the pusillanimity of Manmohan Singh, such advisors as Shiv Shankar Menon (the man knows Mandarin but not the Chinese mind), and the effete Indian Foreign Service. Once China and Pakistan suffer terrible punishments on account of unexpected Indian actions, they will sue for peace. India must be wholly oriented towards effecting asymmetric responses. It must unfailingly do the unthinkable. That is how great powers are made.

With all its limitations, Indira Gandhi made India pre-eminent in South Asia. Narendra Modi’s clear role is to pick up from where she left. Political compulsions may prevent him from publicly acknowledging her sterling contributions to the securing of the external realm, but nothing stops him from quietly fulfilling her vision in addition to his personal goals which are considerable. Her own party, captured by third-rate descendents, cannot advance India any more. The baton has passed to Narendra Modi.

[ramana]

Karamat**. He knew TSP had tested Cheeni maal(1990 test in Sinkinag) and hence would work. By agreenig not to test TSP would have got a lot of free goodies like F16s to deliver the Cheeni maal.
But Badmsah had a bigger problem. He could be w-e-b -cutletted by Benazir Bhutto*. So what use goddies when you are not alive to enjoy them?

* Recall her inflamatory article published by TOIslamabad.

** Karamat was replaced by Mushy!!!

[RamaY]

ahaa... thanks Rji.

So what are the consequences?

LKG and MLK forced Badmash to test. As a result of this Pakis didn't get goodies. On the flip side pakis went crazy with their nuke making, some saying they have >00 now.

So which way was more beneficial to us? Pakis being overt nukis or covert nukis?

If they were covert, we could have entered into P6?

[Frederic]

I am not so sure, Acharya-ji. There is a significant fanatic part which subscribes to this view (a monolithic Muslim world against the EEEEEVIL others), but especially in Iran and Iraq, there is a segment that has a genuine desire to come to terms with India. And they are struggling to discover their own place in the world. They do not wish to be dictated to by Mullahs and they subscribe to an Islamic identity, because it is the only one they know, but especially among Persians, I see a great reverence for Zoroastrianism. Not sure if it can be revived at all, but there is a feeling that it is theirs, and must be preserved. Further, the greatest accomplishments of Persia came under the pre-Islamic Zoroastrians (Achaemenids, Parthians and the Sassanids). Islam has brought nothing except misery for most of its reign, and most rulers were not even Persians. This, by the way, is one reason why they have a great love for the Safavids - because they helped differentiate the `cultured Persians' from the `lizard eating Bedouins' and why the Persians are so stubbornly Shia. There is a great desire to separate themselves from the Arabs and the Turks. As I said, I am not sure if this can be fanned into a pro-Zoroastrian move, but the feeling that they are more cultured, and they should not be grouped with the other Muslims is something I have observed.

Nageshks, though we could differentiate between the "cultured Persians" from the "lizard eating Bedouins" , I am not sure that the Iranian attitude towards India has any positive memes. This is despite the shared connections through Zoroastrianism going back to the mists of time.

Sometime ago Karl wrote a series of excellent posts on the Iranian attitude towards India in general. To paraphrase from memeory, unfortunately Indians are known as the people who run away everytime from battle leaving behind their women and children to suffer. Also to be noted are the shenanigans of BBC Persian Service. BBC Persia's portrayal of India is without exception negative and highly derogatory. I was trying to search for Karl's posts on this but was unsuccessful.

[ramana]

ahaa... thanks Rji.

So what are the consequences?

LKG and MLK forced Badmash to test. As a result of this Pakis didn't get goodies. On the flip side pakis went crazy with their nuke making, some saying they have >00 now.

So which way was more beneficial to us? Pakis being overt nukis or covert nukis?

If they were covert, we could have entered into P6?

Pakis with overt nukes for they had them even before India did. With covert nukes they could keep threatening India and the West + PRC would clamp down on India much harder. After the tests the sanctions affected Pakis more and have led them on the path of greener vs green.

The PRC would never allow India to be P6.
In fact the Paki made stuff didn't go off (Kohl and Japanese premier announced the test turned out to be fizzul) and the PRC rushed them test worthy articles.

[RamaY]

ahaa... thanks Rji.

So what are the consequences?

LKG and MLK forced Badmash to test. As a result of this Pakis didn't get goodies. On the flip side pakis went crazy with their nuke making, some saying they have >00 now.

So which way was more beneficial to us? Pakis being overt nukis or covert nukis?

If they were covert, we could have entered into P6?

Pakis with overt nukes for they had them even before India did. With covert nukes they could keep threatening India and the West + PRC would clamp down on India much harder. After the tests the sanctions affected Pakis more and have led them on the path of greener vs green.

The PRC would never allow India to be P6.
In fact the Paki made stuff didn't go off (Kohl and Japanese premier announced the test turned out to be fizzul) and the PRC rushed them test worthy articles.

So at the end Sriman LKA and MLK (Madan Lal Khurana) taunting Pakistan helped Indian Interests. But Sri NVS thinks otherwise.

[ramana]

See the Pakis got the bomb in 1984 as part of Reagan's escalation campaign against FSU in Afghanistan. The Pakis realised they could use it to stave of Brasstacks in 1987. RG then authorised the Indian nuke program for till then the eleite were thinking just showing capability was enough and not possession. (Even here he did not authorize till Indians got hair samples from barber shops in TSP, showing enrichrment was high enough for WEU!)
The Pakis went ahead and tested their local made weapon in PRC in 1990. Soon after that they stirred the pot in Kashmir and made multiple nuke threats.

NVS conclusion is based on incomplete information and shaded vision vis a vis LKAji. LKA did th eright hting in 1998.

BTW Mrs G essentially put the weapon program on deep freeze till RG reactivated in 1988. So what deft handling is he praising?

And as for MMS ji huzoors we dont know all the info.

SSM enhanced the doctrine without anyone noting.


-----------

Aside before we criticize someone in office we need to know what options they had or could create.

1962 was a major political failure and small reverse for the Indian Army which recovered by 1965 and by 1971 won a great victory.

In 1965 LBS authorizing crossing the IB in Punjab was a very huge step. That is when the political leadership regained its nerve.

MMS in 2008 was asked a three month readiness time from the forces.

[RamaY]

Thanks. Just wanted to get informed.

Looks like NVS's focus is on political leadership and he need not criticize LKA unnecessarily to make NM powerful. That is non-Chanakya philosophy.

Chanakya says there are two ways to win your enemy. Become more powerful than your enemy or weaken your enemy below your levels. But the problem with the 2nd strategy is that you are not gaining any strength w.r.t other potential enemies.

NM's strength has been on his own so far.

[Pratyush]

Firstpost World India should avoid ‘Magnificent Delusions’ about Nawaz Sharif

[ramana]

MMS foreign policy is in shambles. His US appeasement at all costs has been shown to be deluded by the release of the Haqqani book where Ombaba writes to TSP right after coming to power and immediately after 26/11 attacks to help throw Cashemere in the mix to the Paki suar.

Obama secretly offered Pak to nudge India on Kashmir: book

US President Barack Obama secretly offered Pakistan in 2009 that he would nudge India towards negotiations on Kashmir in lieu of it ending support to terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Taliban, but much to his disappointment Islamabad rejected the offer.

This is Haqqani's interpretation of the secret letter written by President Obama to the then President Asif Ali Zardari, which was personally hand delivered by his then National Security Advisor Gen (rtd) James Jones.

Dated November 11, 2009, through the letter Obama offered Pakistan to become America's "long-term strategic" partner. The letter "even hinted at addressing Pakistan's oft-stated desire for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute," he writes.

"Obama wrote that the United States would tell countries of the region that 'the old ways of doing business are no longer acceptable'. He acknowledged that some countries — a reference to India — had used 'unresolved disputes to leave open bilateral wounds for years or decades. They must find ways to come together'," Haqqani writes.

"But in an allusion to Pakistan, he (Obama) said, 'Some countries have turned to proxy groups to do their fighting instead of choosing a path of peace and security. The tolerance or support of such proxies cannot continue'," the former diplomat writes quoting from the letter.

"I am committed to working with your government to ensure the security of the Pakistani state and to address threats to your security in a constructive way," the book says, citing Obama's letter to Zardari.

"Pakistan's success is to America's success in the region," Jones had said.

........

[/quote]

[Vipul]

India to host 2 key multilateral meetings.


Next week, a bevy of foreign ministers would be seen discussing growth, economic development and security here, as India plays host to two important multilateral meetings.

The first would be a trilateral dialogue between the foreign ministers of Russia, India and China, or RIC, staring November 10. This is the third time India would host the RIC foreign ministers meeting. The previous meetings were held at Delhi and Bangalore.

During the meeting, foreign ministers of the three countries are expected to discuss issues related to economic growth, development, terrorism and drug trafficking. They would also firm up their negotiating agenda for the coming World Trade Organization meeting in Bali, Indonesia, said Syed Akbaruddin, joint secretary and spokesperson, Ministry of External Affairs.

The RIC foreign ministers’ dialogue started in 1996. It was aimed at discussing and strengthening issues of common interest, under the broader canvas of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) agenda.

India would also host another key meeting, the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) from November 11-12.

The meeting, to be hosted by India the first time, would also be one of the largest multilateral meetings hosted by India in recent years, with 36 foreign ministers and 12 deputy foreign ministers from Asia and Europe participating. All 51 members of ASEM will be represented at the meeting.

ASEM represents about 60 per cent of the world’s population, 52 per cent of the global gross domestic product and 68 per cent of global trade.

“As the chair, India has been pushing for a fresh approach that would re-orient discussions in ASEM from dialogue towards actual tangible cooperation, taking ASEM to the next level of maturity. The approach suggested by India has been very well received by ASEM members,” said Akbaruddin.

Issues pertaining to growth and economic development are expected to dominate the meeting, with a focus on renewable energy, small and medium enterprises, education and skill development.

ASEM has, like many other fora, has primarily been a platform for political dialogue. In the past, members have discussed global issues, even when discussions on these were being held in specialised fora elsewhere.

[SSridhar]

MMS foreign policy is in shambles.

On all fronts, Ramana, all fronts. Af-Pak, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, China, Sri Lanka, Maldives. With all our neighbours. Never has it been so bad, as far as I can see. The only silver lining is the India-Japan relationship, which has flourished. Though GoI has taken steps in that relationship, the pace of our initiative could have been faster. We are shackling ourselves because we see ghost in every shadow and are unable to move forward.

Take this Ex. Malabar for example. When China objected, we withdrew from the multilateral exercise three years back. This year, the exercise has been whittled down in deference to possible Chinese sensitivities. OTOH, the Chinese trample over our sensitivities wrt Pakistan, Kashmir etc. Even among the African counties, our stock has dwindled and China has usurped our clout. We were never strong in Latin American countries where China has become dominant. European countries are lukewarm as is Russia punctuated by occasional talks of military business. That's all. The India-US relationship has hit a plateau.

There are no movements in membership of NSG, Wassenaar etc. The speeches by our PM at ASEAN in the last few years have been un-inspirational and hardly broke any ground.

All in all, a very weary, staid and stale diplomacy.

[Prem]

On JAPAN front, MMS almost lost it when he refused to show sympathetic view on Japan 's security challenge in an interview with one Journalist. IFS seems still living in 80s or is it just the old Khoosat still sitting there and refuse to open their eyes or widen the mental horizon.

[Philip]

CRM has a devastating report on our miserable firang policy.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... n/1192195/

India's region
C. Raja Mohan : Fri Nov 08 2013,

One of the five foreign policy guidelines that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh articulated this week is on the importance of re-imagining our region. The PM asked the Indian ambassadors "to recognise that the Indian subcontinent's shared destiny requires greater regional cooperation and connectivity". The idea of India's "shared destiny" with its immediate neighbours has been a consistent theme in the PM's statements over the last decade, which has seen significant expansion of New Delhi's regional engagement at both bilateral and multilateral levels.

This idea has a long lineage in India's foreign policy. Under the first non-Congress government formed in 1977 by the Janata Party, the then foreign minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, wanted to break the perception that Indira Gandhi's regional policies were "hegemonic". Instead, Vajpayee wanted to promote "good neighbourly relations". It was again a non-Congress leader, Inder Kumar Gujral, who injected the notion of regionalism in India's foreign policy. The "Gujral Doctrine" sought to end India's endless contestations with neighbours and offered to walk the extra mile in resolving longstanding problems.

Meanwhile, the economic reforms initiated by then Congress prime minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, and his finance minister, Manmohan Singh, provided the foundation for India's economic regionalism. India and its neighbours, it was becoming clear, cannot effectively globalise their economies while neglecting regional integration. As prime minister, Vajpayee consistently emphasised that India can choose its friends but not its neighbours, and pursued peace with Pakistan and a solution to the boundary dispute with China.

Despite making bold moves — for example, negotiating on Kashmir with Pakistan and settling the boundary dispute with Bangladesh — Singh has lost the momentum because of the inability of his government to build domestic consensus on an enlightened regionalism. If the PM now yields to the pressures from the Congress party and skips the Commonwealth Summit in Colombo, he will severely damage the national interest, despite his good intentions and strong convictions on regionalism.


STRATEGIC UNITY

Analysts have drawn attention to the PM's usage of the term "the subcontinent" rather than the more recent moniker, South Asia. "The subcontinent" more accurately reflects the region's shared history and enduring identity. In using the term, which has begun to gain some traction in recent years, the PM is referring to another goal central to India's foreign policy — the strategic unity of the subcontinent.

All great empires that have flourished in the region — the Mauryas, the Mughals and the British Raj — strove to unite the subcontinent and secure it against external and internal challenges. The Partition and its strategic consequences have severely constrained independent India's attempts to build the strategic unity of the subcontinent. India's past insular economic policies have made it even more difficult by sundering the traditional commercial and physical connectivities within the subcontinent. Restoring the lost connectivity, then, stands out as an important strategic objective of India's foreign policy. Delhi must learn to work with multiple sovereignties in the subcontinent and leverage the logic of globalisation to promote shared prosperity across the region.

OUTSIDE POWERS

As part of its quest for primacy in the subcontinent, India has always opposed great power intervention in the region. Realism, however, suggests India cannot exclude the great power involvement in the subcontinent by mere diktat. Delhi's complaint against external meddling in India's neighbourhood, directed traditionally against the West, is now also aimed at China. As the world's second largest economy, China's profile in the region can only rise. China is the largest trading partner to most countries in the subcontinent, including India. On top of it, China has demonstrated its ability to alter the military balance in the subcontinent by helping Pakistan arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles. In the coming years, Beijing is also likely to become a major supplier of conventional weapons to most of India's neighbours.

Protesting against the role of great powers in the region is futile. India needs a more purposeful policy to build on its natural geographic advantages in the subcontinent, deepen economic integration, promote regional connectivity, and resolve outstanding bilateral political disputes. If it can't sustain a dialogue with Islamabad, ratify agreements negotiated in good faith with Dhaka, and the PM can't even travel to a multilateral gathering in Colombo, Delhi is only making it easier for other powers to intervene in the subcontinent. Delhi has itself to blame if the subcontinent eventually stops being India's region.

The writer is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi and a contributing editor for 'The Indian Express'

[SSridhar]

I do not agree with Raja Mohan on the issue of the PM 'not being able to sustain a dialogue with Islamabad' due to public pressure. This is entirely different from the other two issues of 'not being able to ratify a negotiated agreeement with Dhaka' or 'not being able to attend CHOGM'. The CHOGM episode especially is very disturbing in our policy-making process. It sets a very bad precedent, along with the water-sharing agreement with Bangladesh that the West Bengal government short-circuited.

[SSridhar]

India to shift ASEM focus to tangible cooperation - Sandeep Dikshit, The Hindu

India is trying a new approach to reorient the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM), whose Foreign Ministers will hold a two-day meeting at Gurgaon from Monday.

ASEM has traditionally focussed on political dialogue rather than on the other two pillars of economic collaboration and socio-economic cooperation.

“As Chair of ASEM, we have ventured to bring about greater balance in the three dimensions. There is support for this approach in ASEM. We hope it will be confirmed by senior officials and Ministers,” External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin told newspersons here on Saturday.

Also, India has been pushing for a fresh approach that will reorient discussions, from dialogue to actual tangible cooperation. ASEM, like many others, has primarily been a forum for political dialogue where in the past members discussed topical global issues even when principal discussions on these were taking place on specialised fora elsewhere.

This resulted in mere reiteration of national positions on many occasions. to build capacity in member-countries, according to official sources.

Next week’s meeting will be the biggest international gathering hosted by India this year with 36 Foreign Ministers and 12 Deputy Foreign Ministers having confirmed their participation. India’s attempt is to focus on areas where real progress and actual deliverables can be achieved. The areas of cooperation identified by India and other members are not generic but are relevant to specific needs and look to build capacity in member-countries, according to official sources.

Bilateral talks

As is the case with all multilateral conferences, ASEM will also see several bilaterals on its margins. The first three major interactions from India’s point of view will take place on Sunday.

These are a meeting of Foreign Ministers from Russia, India and China (RIC) followed by separate meetings between External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid and his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Sergei Lavrov and Wang Yi.

While the RIC interaction will see the Ministers exchanging notes on regional and international developments, Mr. Khurshid’s separate interactions will touch on the actionable areas identified during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Beijing last month. The meeting with Mr. Lavrov had to be cancelled due to a change in his flight timing.

Another awaited interaction would be with Sartaj Aziz, Pakistan Prime Minister’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs. The focus for the brief interaction will “flow from the outcome of the last meeting [between Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Nawaz Sharif] when it was decided that for discussions to go forward, there should be peace on the Line of Control,” noted Mr. Akbaruddin.

[ramana]

X-posting from Ind Army thread as it really is about the MEA. One more confrimation that IFS babus think they work for foreign govts and not India.

Govt surrenders to pakistan on Kargil hero

Please read his arguments and weep or throw-up as you please.

[member_27847]

More or less its given that no congress government will come out of nehru syndrome. Can bjp led government come out of both nehru and ABV syndrome??

All Indian leaders suffer from 'FEAR' syndrome.

The military men lives in an artificial world (cantonments) and does not know the reality of India. The political man has seen and felt the reality of India. There is a difference between 'sipahi' and 'neta'.

'Neta' knows the weakness of India. Thats why he suffers from FEAR syndrome.

Plus there is a LOT of ARMTWISTING of India at the diplomatic level. Army does not participate in this, so Army does not know.

The international consensus is not yet favourable towards India.

[member_27847]

India needs to engage other nations (including neighbourhood) rather than distance from them.

India needs to change its isolationist behaviour. This is important. It is not about Congress or BJP, but about generic Hindu mentality.

Nepal contributes so much Indian Army's manpower, yet there is no rail link to Kathmandu. Why??? How much of Nepal's infrastructure is built by India???

India's foreign policy is pathetic because the attitude of people is pathetic.

[vishvak]

This "international consensus" doesn't include opinion of Indians cannot be 'international', especially after 'armtwisting' and other such blackmail tactics.

Agree that Indian foreign policy needs to improve, for example make cultural aspects as one of pillars of policies without regards to utterance of ignorant people in international fora.

[SSridhar]

Govt focus on better ties with the Arab world - Sachin Parashar, ToI

As if to complement its Look East policy, India has suddenly lined up a series of engagements with West Asia and Arab world leaders in the next few months. Top diplomatic sources confirmed that these engagements, starting with a visit by Egyptian foreign minister Nabil Fahmy this week, will culminate in India's participation at the Geneva II conference on Syria in January.

The UN announced on Monday that the Geneva Conference, which is meant to negotiate an end to the ongoing civil war in Syria, will be held on January 22. Sources here indicated that given India's interest in matters relating to the Arab world, foreign minister Salman Khurshid is likely to be invited for the meet.

Arab League secretary general Nabil Al Araby will be in Delhi for talks on the Syrian situation by the end of December, officials confirmed. Syrian President Bashar Al Assad's political advisor Bouthaina Shaaban had earlier said Syria would like India to participate in Geneva II. New Delhi has been keen to participate in the much delayed conference.

Fahmy will arrive on Wednesday in what will be his first visit to an Asian country. Sources said Egypt is looking at substantive engagement with India both in terms of outlining the political roadmap that it intends to pursue domestically "as well as the possibility of greater cooperation between the two countries in West Asia including on the Palestinian issue, Syria and developments following the interim agreement between Iran and E3+3''.

Following this, Khurshid will address in Bahrain all Indian heads of missions in the Gulf, West Asia, North Africa and Iran during a brainstorming session on opportunities for India in the Middle East. This will coincide with India's participation in the Manama Dialogue in Bahrain which too is expected to focus on Syria. It will also be attended by US secretary of defence Chuck Hagel.

Soon after this, India will host UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the second week of December. Earlier this year, India had hosted Kuwait's prime minister.

Foreign office sources said the flurry of engagements in the next few weeks affirms India's commitment to the Arab world -- a region home to 7 million Indians, mostly in the Gulf. India has trade worth $200 billion with the region which also accounts for $70 billion foreign exchange remittances.

[ramana]

This is a fallout of the Persian card played by US

[Prem]

This is a fallout of the Persian card played by US

India and the Middle East: Delhi begins a re-think
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india ... k/1204632/

The external affairs minister Salman Khurshid is sitting down, this weekend in Bahrain, for a long overdue brainstorming session with the Indian envoys to the Middle East. After all, no part of the world has seen as much political convulsion in recent years as the Middle East; and in no region is India such a prisoner to pre-determined positions. The internal tumult generated by the 'Arab Spring' and the shift in regional geopolitics flowing from the interim nuclear accord between Washington and Tehran are only two among the many factors demanding that Delhi take a new look at the region.The Foreign Office, for one, could start with a review of the nomenclature. India is probably alone in identifying the region as "West Asia". Delhi must discard this narcissism, and adopt a name the countries of the region themselves prefer, the "Middle East".
The more urgent challenge is to overcome segmented policy-making towards the region in the Foreign Office. For example, Iran is part of a division that deals with Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Arab countries of the Gulf are under a separate part of the ministry.And yet another division deals with what is called West Asia and North Africa. Turkey, which once ruled the region and is seeking to expand its influence in the region, is under a senior official who deals with Europe.
By having envoys to most of these countries in one room, Khurshid is starting a conversation that might help Delhi better understand the Middle East as a whole and the interconnections between its various sub-regions.

Whether it was the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, or U.S. reluctance to intervene in Syria this year, there are major frictions within the West.America's historic dependence on the region for oil supplies is coming to an end as the U.S. and its neighbours in the Western hemisphere are becoming major producers of hydrocarbons. China, which has replaced America as the largest importer of oil from the Gulf, is steadily expanding its political influence in the region. Russia meanwhile has begun to play hardball in the Middle East.
The shift in the great power dynamic is matched by the sharpening of regional contradictions—between the Sunni and the Shia and the Arabs and Persians. Minorities and majorities, long deprived of their political and religious rights, have become assertive and finding supporting from kindred communities and governments across borders. India's traditional rhetoric on 'third worldism' is not of much use in understanding the current turbulence in the Middle East. Khurshid's conversations in Bahrain, one hopes, will let Delhi develop a strategic perspective of the region and help reclaim India's once pivotal role in the Middle East.

[SSridhar]

India Needs Contact and Dialogue Policy: Nirupama Rao - The Hindu

The country needs to craft astute and strategic responses to challenges arising from its neighbouring countries, former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao has said.

She was delivering the 22nd Sree Chithira Tirunal memorial lecture on ‘India in a tough neighbourhood’ here on Saturday.

“India has a central position is South Asia. The going has become tough in the surrounding region due to sectarian divides, radicalism, and the proliferation of arms. The right mix of strength and strategic restraint is needed in this situation. We need to follow a policy which focusses on contact and dialogue with the neighbours,” she said.

About the situation in Afghanistan, she said India should ensure that the elected government was not left on its own to fight battles with extremist elements.

The North-Eastern States would benefit by smoother entry to other parts of India through Bangladesh. It was vital to work together with Bangladesh to fight terrorism.

In Sri Lanka, the end of civil war had provided a historic opportunity for reconciliation.

India should ensure that the self-respect of Tamil minority should not be eroded.

As for dealing with China, she said the challenge was in managing the relationship between the two countries despite its inherent complexities. The dispute over territory with China was not new.

“There is a risk of these issues obfuscating our vision for the future. India has much work left on strengthening communication and transport in the border regions,” she said.