Indian Foreign Policy

Agree with Sri. Shyam Saran's views on our broad FP focus. Without control of and peace in the neighborhood and mutual growth, India will always remain a sub-regional power with NO clout.

Modi must re-establish India’s global clout - Shyam Saran

It is India’s neighbourhood that holds the key to its emergence as a regional and global power. If India’s neighbourhood is politically unstable and economically deprived, there will be bigger challenges to India’s security and its own economic prospects. India’s security is inseparable from that of the Indian subcontinent. Its economic destiny is likewise enmeshed with that of its neighbours. Here is an opportunity to clear the decks in our neighbourhood, so that India is able to break out of its subcontinental confines and expand its footprint beyond its borders. Under successive governments, India’s engagement with its neighbours has at best been episodic and mostly crisis-driven. This must change. The new prime minister must not follow his predecessor’s example of rarely travelling to our neighbouring capitals. In fact, the first order of business should be to connect with leaders of the subcontinent, including Pakistan.

wig · Post by **wig** » 20 May 2014 07:55

Nitty-gritty of Kashmir Track II

this is penned down by a distinguished person Sh. K N Pandita, the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University

On May 13, S.K. Lambah, former diplomat and PM’s special envoy on Track II talks with Pakistan delivered a lecture on on-going bilateral talks with Pakistan on resolving Kashmir tangle. He claims to be at the wheel since 2005.
Never before has any officially accredited top level interlocutor gone public on the sensitive theme of Kashmir. Why this uninhibited and dramatic exposition now, is the question?
The timing, venue and the theme of lecture, all are intriguing.
The venue, Kashmir University, is the power house for generating and disseminating separatist and secessionist ideology among the educated youth of Kashmir. Was the venue chosen to placate the champions of that ideology? What a crude and unrealistic strategy more likely to be counter-productive.
About timing, the lecture was scheduled for just three days before the announcement of the result of parliamentary election. Remember that both Chief Minister Omar Abdullah and PDP Chief Mufti Mohd Sayeed both have been consistently exuding rhetoric of Indo-Pak talks to resole Kashmir tangle.
Moving away from this prefatory, we find Lambah’s speech a concoction of lies, myths and spurious perceptions. According to him, K-situation has been worked out “quietly” since 2001. He hides elucidating why 2001.
The reality is that when after 9/11 General Musharraf of Pakistan decided to be on the side of the US in her fight against Al-Qaeda terror, he emphatically sought US intervention in Kashmir as the price for siding with the US. He blackmailed the US and mounted pressure on Pentagon to link Kashmir to Pakistan’s anti-Al Qaeda and pro-US posture.
It will be recalled the then US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, and later on Powell— a buddy with Musharraf— both handed out subtle warnings to India that she would be in trouble if Kashmir issue was not resolved.
American think-tanks and policy planners in Bush administration, espousing determinative pontifical role, vexed eloquent on what they considered positive aspects of climb down on Kashmir for India. Lambah’s following passage is verbatim reproduction of Pentagon’s brief to US Senate Foreign Relations Committee note: “A solution of the Kashmir issue will substantially enhance India’s security, strengthen the prospects for durable peace and stability in the region, and enable India to focus more on rapidly emerging long-term geo-political challenges…”
Read between the lines, the note contains veiled threat that India’s security will be endangered if Kashmir question was not solved. It also harkens India to extended threat not only from the rising jihadists on her west but also the rapidly emerging regional threat of China without mentioning any name.
It will be noted that Lambah changes the goal post by declaring that Mumbai attack was not conducted by LeT but by Al Qaeda. This is brazen distortion purporting to reinforce US’ veiled threat to India and coerce her into climb down on Kashmir. Lambah is eloquent in speaking the language of the US. What was Ilyas Kashmiri’s role before he joined Al Qaeda and what were his links? Lambah did not touch on that.
Lambah claims Kashmir talks have “survived a string of deadly and high visibility attacks.” What a paradox and naiveté. Who made attacks to disrupt talks and whose creation are they? Why does the Indian envoy want to exonerate his counterpart who is integral to the attacking outfit?
Lambah links our destiny to a “stable, peaceful, cooperative and connected neighbour.” Presuming the State of Pakistan has not these attributes, does it mean that our destiny is doomed? What a typical servile and slavish mentality. Lambah knows more than anybody else that Pakistan owes her survival to instability, disorder and non-cooperation with India. She receives enormous cash doles from her western and Gulf patrons for perpetuating instability and disorder. This is the essential pre-requisite of a military dominated polity.
Contributing to American agenda in the region (Kashmir included); Lambah joins their chorus of “militant spill over” into Kashmir. What he proposes is that India should succumb but not resist. What an irony that a diplomat of a nuclear country should speak the language of slavery and imbecility and label it as diplomacy. That is what his mentors want him to profess.
He talks of national interests without elucidating what precisely are our national interests. Pakistan’s national interest is capturing Kashmir by whatever means possible — war, proxy war, low intensity war, instigating armed uprising, destabilising elected government in Kashmir and last but not the least Track II diplomacy, which she is carrying forward simultaneously with it. For achieving this national interest, Pakistan has publicly announced that she will render all sort of support to the so-called Kashmiri freedom fighters. Is India’s national interest to concede on table what Pakistan could not achieve on the ground? Did Pakistan ever show even the faintest symptom of deviating from her stated interest?
Against this, India’s climb down is explicit: she has watered down the Parliament Resolution of February 1994 on Kashmir; she has succumbed to legalizing the return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri militants responsible for killing Kashmiri Pandits, and ethnically cleansing Kashmir of 3.5 lakh Kashmiri Hindu minority community. Is it India’s national interests to silently allow Wahhabizing of Kashmirian society and let secessionist leaders like Ali Geelani to rubbish Indian Constitution by demanding secession from India and accession to Pakistan and giving a call for boycott of elections. Lambah wants these parallel interests to be preserved and pursued and formalised through secret talks between the two states.
Lambah’s claim that talks between the two countries are carried on “silently without the knowledge, prompting and intervention of any third Party”, is blatant lie and horrendous attempt of misleading ordinary people. Not only had the sources of US administration but even President Obama as well repeatedly said that the two countries were carrying forward their talks on Kashmir and that the US would facilitate it if asked for. Former Pakistani President General Musharraf said that his country was talking to Indians. What for has been ARS the NC leader shuttling between Islamabad and Srinagar almost every month, and at whose expenses?
Coming to the much touted 7-point proposal of Lambah, he has lionised himself by defending each point as vigorously as he could. But nowhere in his speech did he drop even the slightest hint about the reaction of his counterpart to his proposal. He avoids giving us a peep into the mind of Pakistani mind. Anyway, we react to his proposal as follows:
By suggesting “no redrawing of borders” does he not water down the Parliament’s Resolution of February 1994? When he concedes correctness of India’s legal, historical and political standpoint in Kashmir, why then oppose redrawing the original border of the State of Jammu and Kashmir? It is a contradiction in terms, a fallacy incompatible with ground situation.
As regards free movement and removal of tariff, let us be realists. Trade between two sides is not and shall not grow as may be cherished by Lambah and his votaries. On several occasions, Indian security and excise personnel checking the cargo and people at the transit point in Poonch sector have seized drugs, fake currency, hawala money and sub-standard material brought to our side. They have also seized goods made in Pakistan which are not allowed. PoK side has been abusing the facility. It is absolute naivety to believe that movement of people will be a successful confidence building measure. It has proved another source of hurting India and, therefore, should be shut down forthwith.
The expectation of Pakistan putting an end to hostility, violence and terrorism is far-fetched and wishful. Pakistan has three power centres not one: the government in Islamabad, army in Rawalpindi GHQ and TTP in Waziristan. Each power centre has its perception, programme and target. Lambah also says peace effort has survived a string of deadly and high visibility attacks. Unwittingly he contradicts his own statements.
As far as the reduction of troops on both sides is concerned, Lambah should know that two decades back Pakistan has raised fully trained, equipped and motivated jihadi crusaders all along the LoC as well as IB with India. Pakistan army has publicly announced that the jihadis form the frontline of defence along her eastern border. We have met with their adventures in Kashmir and even at the IB near Kathua. Pakistan has repeatedly stated that she has no control on “non-State actors” meaning jihadis. She has created this force and put the safety valve in place. What sense is there in proposing reduction of army on both sides?
As far as self-governance proposal is concerned, Lambah knows that in terms of political and democratic arrangement, the two sides are not comparable. Gilgit Baltistan has been integrated into Pakistan despite the decision of “AJK” High Court that it is part of the original state of Jammu and Kashmir. What about the self-rule of that region? Will Pakistan allow them autonomous status and promise to maintain it?
Lastly, Lambah touches on volatile human rights issue clubbing it with reintegration of militants into society. We need to identify the groups whose human rights have been violated before we proceed further on the subject.
These are (a) Nearly 10 lakh Hindus and Sikhs who were attacked by Pakistan sponsored and abetted tribesmen on 22 October 1947 in Muzaffarabad, Mirpur, Kotli, Bagh etc. and forced them out of their homes to migrate to Indian part of the state (b) Hindus and Sikhs who were attacked by tribesmen in 1947 and looted by locals in the then district of Baramulla extending from Uri to Shalteng in the peripheries of Srinagar. (c) About a thousand Kashmiri Hindus killed by Pakistan armed militants during the rise of Theo-fascism in early 1990 in Kashmir valley followed by extirpation of entire 3.5 lakh-strong community, and loot and vandalizing of their moveable and immoveable property.
They are sill living in refugee camps in exile, and last but not the least the Shia community of Gilgit-Baltistan that has been denied religious, political, economic and social rights and have been subjected to forcible demographic change by Pakistani rulers. To add to these, now thousands of Chinese troops have been allowed to occupy the region and exploit its mineral wealth and water resources to the benefit of Pakistanis and not the locals.
Respecting human rights of these victimized groups means doing something in practice to mitigate their suffering and compensating them for material and psychological losses they have gone through.
As regards re-integration of militants into society, the question is where they ever disintegrated from society and who disintegrated them? Lambah needs to put the record straight. These young Kashmiris enthusiastically responded to Pakistan’s prompting to clandestinely cross the LoC, join terrorist camps in PoK, go through brain washing, receive training in arms and subversion, re-enter Kashmir and cause killing, mayhem, insurgency, rape, loot of banks, kidnapping and other criminal activities. Their home people gave them outright support in these activities and even felt proud that if they were killed they would attain martyrdom. Which of their human right was violated and by whom, Lambah must specify.
This exposition will make it clear to the audience that the US exerted great pressure on India to climb down on Kashmir so that her interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan were served. All that one can say is that India should refuse to be blackmailed and intimidated. We have to build the capacity of facing any challenge from any quarter. We should expose interlocutors who are going around with somebody else’s agenda in their brief cases.

http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/nitty-gri ... -track-ii/

it is worth reading in full. Mr. Lambah is something of a Quisling character. He bleats the commands of a master whose heart does not quite beat for India

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 May 2014 09:06

One of the first decisions that the new dispensation should take is to ban GM crops polluting India.The UPA had several touts for GM and Monsanto,despite grave concern from experts about the disastrous effect it would have on Indian agriculture and the farmer. The attempts to shove down BT Brinjal must be recollected.here is what has been done in Russia.

http://rt.com/op-edge/159948-gmo-food-russia-law/

Russia has some of the most precious uncontaminated top soil on the planet and if it is rigorously controlled to stay GMO-free and free from chemicals its productivity would increase as Europe declines, geopolitical analyst William Engdahl told RT.

Russian PMs have pondered a draft bill outlawing GMOs. A draft bill submitted to the Russian parliament likens GMO production and distribution to terrorism. After entering the World Trade Organization, Russia was expected to allow GM food production and distribution within its market. However, in March Russia’s President Putin said the country would stay GM-free without violating its obligations to the WTO.

RT: What do you think about this latest bill in Russia's parliament, which equates GM producers who flout the rules with terrorists. Is that a bit over the top?

William Engdahl: The language on Russian media blogs is [that] punishment for knowingly introducing GMO crops into Russia illegally should have a punishment comparable to that given to terrorists for knowingly hurting people. The direction of this is anything that stops, and puts the genie back in the bottle called genetic manipulation of plants and organisms is to the good for the future of the mankind. The comment about 20 percent of harvest increase in some GMOs is absolute rubbish. There is no long-term harvest gain that has been proven for GMO crops anywhere in the world because they are not modified to get harvest increases. So this is just soap bubbles that Monsanto, Syngenta and GMO giants are putting out to loll the public into thinking it is something good.

RT: Will this measure, if adopted, reduce the number of GM products on the market?

WE: I hope it does. I haven’t got access to the paragraphs of legislation but I think the direction that Prime Minister Medvedev indicated two-three months ago in terms of making this U-turn against GMO that seemed to have a green light after WTO. A year ago it was looking like GMO was a common thing in Russia which would be a catastrophe. I think the point is Russia has some of the most precious non-destroyed top soil on this planet and the richness of this top soil, if it is rigorously controlled to be GMO-free, to be free from chemicals, from Roundup or Atrazyne which is Syngenta's favorite poison, and is marketed on the world markets as certified organic. Russia has a huge export market in Germany, in Western Europe, the European Union and elsewhere because there is a tremendous lack of it. So anything that Russia does to block GMO, keep in mind, the EU has not certified for commercial planting any GMO for years. There is such a great popular opposition in the EU that Monsanto, despite all the proclivities of the corrupt European Commission in Brussels to go with it, or even some people in the German government. The population is absolutely adamant here, they do not want this in their food.

RT: How can consumers be better protected from inadvertently buying genetically modified food?

WE: They can quite easily. First of all, they can do what the State of California tried, and Monsanto spent millions of dollars to block it and will try again. The State of Washington tried it and the same thing with Monsanto spending millions of dollars to create false lobbying campaigns [ensued]. The State of Vermont tried and succeeded in getting labeling on products that contain above 0.9 percent of GMO, which is similar to the EU. That is labeled on the shelves, when you buy this box of Kellogg’s Cornflakes you make sure to look and see if this is not GMO corn in my Cornflakes that my child is going to eat or is it this GMO garbage that Kellogg’s would so lovingly like to get rid of. That is one step. The other thing is for people to become informed about what we eat. Support local farmers, it is not against technology. I have seen it directly in Germany and elsewhere in Europe that properly done organic farming creates greater harvest yields than industrialized agriculture. The productivity is better, the quality is finer. The animals that are range fed, grass fed cows, chickens, they are real cows and chickens, they are not these synthetic pseudo-meat that we buy on the supermarket shelves in the big chains in Europe and in the US. So that is something that Russia has a great positive contribution to make.

.

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 May 2014 10:59

X Posted from the STFUP thread.

Bruce Riedel in Hindustan Times:

Islamabad will not give Narendra Modi time for pleasantries

arun · Post by **arun** » 21 May 2014 11:01

X Posted from the “India-US Strategic News and Discussion” thread.

Bruce Riedel in Economic Times:

Narendra Modi & Barack Obama should make counter terrorism their top joint security endeavour

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 21 May 2014 18:34

Modi takes the right first steps in FP. Invited SAARC countries to his swearing in. Good move. If for five years, he forgets about the rest of the world and focuses on SAARC, he will go down as the greatest PM of the nation. Early days, I know. This whole notion of "non interference" in other nations affairs stems from nation-state principles, which work well only if certain stabilizing factors exist. It is these stabilizing factors that the GoI has to focus on to ensure its primacy in the region, which cannot be done by overlooking or closing our eyes to our neighbors and their challenges.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 21 May 2014 19:19

Nehruvian edifices of foreign policy that has been institutionalized must crumble. Foremost is the Principle of Non Interference in affairs of others. This is a useless chain we have put on ourselves thanks to Nehru. It has never prevented anyone from interfering in Kashmir, NE, Arunachal or anywhere in India. But it has prevented us from helping Tibetans, Balochs, prevented Lt Kalia from getting justice in International courts and much more.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 May 2014 20:07

Fundamentally, we must genuinely follow our interests every time, and all the time. Rest will follow automatically.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 21 May 2014 22:35

Sridhar Ji, 'our interests' is a very very generic term. To those that complied with vigor with 'non interference in internal affairs' it was also in India's so called interests. In India's 'interests' they thus didn't pursue Lt Kalia's case etc.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 May 2014 10:03

harbans ji, yes, I know. I wrote that knowing fully well how generic it is. But, it can only be so broad and so generic when we deal with inter-state relations. My reasoning is this. If we did not interfere more vigorously in Tibet (we did interfere there) because it was felt by Nehru to be in India's interests not to do so (for whatever reason), then he should have done something else to tackle the Chinese intransigence on the border dispute and enmity. Nehru was the man on the scene to judge what to do and he might have had his reasons for not interfering more robustly in the Tibetan issue. Though it is debatable, we can give him that benefit of doubt. But, doing 'neither' is not in India's 'genuine interest'. Some might argue that he employed the 'active forward line' policy, but that was like committing harakiri without logistics, equipment or even clothing to the poor soldiers. That again was not in 'genuine Indian interest'. That is why it is impossible to define, IMHO, what is 'genuine interest' especially since we do not know the whole story and we may never even know that; but, the fact remains twiddling thumbs or sitting tight on the haunches, or missing opportunities, or hoping for reasonableness from our enemies, or being afraid of 'reactions from others', or absorbing blow-after-blow as a means to achieve a moral high ground, or not retaliating at all in a suitable form and other actions of similar nature are not acceptable as being in 'genuine interests' of India.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 May 2014 03:56

When the fighting has to stop: Inder Malhotra

manjgu · Post by **manjgu** » 26 May 2014 07:03

i think india should have looked beyond SAARC..we should have invited Japan, Vietnam, Burma and other SE asian countries and sent a msg that we are looking beyond SAARC !! just like non aligned ( NAM) this SAARC is a totally inconsequential body..

india is makin too much of a virtue of this non interference in other countries stuff... if we want to occupy a higher pedestal in intl affairs we will have to be prepared to play a more active role and make tough decisions/positions at UN etc

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 26 May 2014 07:09

no and no.

we shouldn't have looked beyond SAARC and no it is not inconsequential. you can't project influence abroad if your home is not in order.

habal · Post by **habal** » 26 May 2014 10:29

It should be SAARC + Indonesia + Burma. As someone said, look at even bigger picture and not restrain to saarc alone. Burma and Indonesia and even Thailand are part of Indic heritage.

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 26 May 2014 11:34

Myanmar leadership should have been invited as one of the neighbors with whom we share very long and porous border. I was disappointed by the non-inclusion of Burma, took it as a signal that North East is yet to get the sufficient mind share it deserves in Delhi. Mostly our NE states are considered as an after thought. I hope Modi-ji changes this by grooming visible impactful leaders from NE and giving some of them key portfolios in our government. NE states only get token inconsequential representation in our cabinet so far. Time to change that. Time for Indian media and population to think Myanmar as our neighbor and invite it to SAARC.

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 May 2014 13:09

It would have been nice to see an invite out to Putin too, perhaps? Will have set a lot of alarum bells a-ringin' !

vijaykarthik · Post by **vijaykarthik** » 26 May 2014 13:10

habal wrote:It should be SAARC + Indonesia + Burma. As someone said, look at even bigger picture and not restrain to saarc alone. Burma and Indonesia and even Thailand are part of Indic heritage.

Cambodia? Laos? Perhaps a bit of Malaysia and a few more places too, surely? At least we had our soft power projections in a lot of those places too.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 01 Jun 2014 07:41

Jaishankar tipped to be Foreign Policy Advisor - ToI

India has to manage its China relationship while balancing out ties with the US.

It is this attitude that is detrimental to our growth. We do not need to 'balance out' anything with anybody. China does not think about Indian sensitivities when it comes to Pakistan or building up its 'string of pearls'. The US has never had any such issues either. I hope that the new government immediately discards this outmoded idea from its DNA

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Jun 2014 07:58

Nehru never flinched when it came to a "police action" in Goa.H'Bad was similarly plucked.It was hubris,imagining that his moral strength and international stature would deter the Chinese from any aggression.He forgot to carry the big stick.

Secondly,one of his catastrophic failures was to trust the US.He bitterly rued this in his pvt. letters to his sister,on the subject of taking the Kashmir issue to the UN on US/western advice.We had the Pakis on the run and had he not stopped the rout of the Paki army from the whole of J&K,he could've then gone to the UN from a towering position of strength.JN Dixit has in one of his books a piece on this."Accommodating" US interests is a recipe for disaster.India's foreign policy must be focussed on securing India's interests first,second and last.Sentimentality should be avoided like the plague.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Jun 2014 06:22

Golden Indo-Iranian opportunity for the new dispensation.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/opinion ... 259689.ece
India's Opportunity in Iran Port

As the Modi government defines its foreign policy priorities, one of the issues that needs urgent attention is the finalisation of India’s investment in the development of Chabahar Port in Iran. This is particularly important because the window of opportunity available to India to have a presence in Chabahar may be closing rapidly. India and Iran had agreed to cooperate on the development of this Iranian port way back in 2003 when Iran’s president Mohammad Khatami had visited India but nothing much has been achieved in these 11 years.

It appears the previous government was close to approving US $100 million investment in the development of the port but could not take the decision. The new government could pick up the threads and quickly seal the deal.

The strategic importance of Chabahar Port for India cannot be overstated. Located in the Sistan-Baluchistan province of Iran on the Makram coast and just outside the Persian Gulf, Chabahar is a natural gateway for India to Afghanistan and Central Asia. In the last 10 years, the Iranians have invested considerable sums of money in the development of Chabahar city. A 600km-long highway linking Chabahar to Zahidan in the north is operational. Zahidan is only about 240km from Milak on the Iran-Afghanistan border. Across Milak is Zaranj in Afghanistan where India has built the Zaranj-Delaram highway. Thus, there is already an excellent road connectivity between Chabahar and Afghanistan via Zahidan. The Iranians have also started the construction of a railway line from Chabahar to Zahidan where it will connect with the Iranian rail network and to Central Asia and CIS.

The Iranians are constructing a vast petro-chemical complex at Chabahar which will receive its gas feedstock through a pipeline from Iranshahr which is only about 200km from Chabahar and is an important point on the proposed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. A gas pipeline from South Pars gas field to Iranshahr has already been built.

The Iranian government has set up a Free Trade Zone at Chabahar to attract investors. It is understood that some CIS countries and Afghanistan have already been given land in the Free Trade Zone. The Iranians are keen to attract Indian investors in the Free Trade Zone.

Chabahar Port has good growth potential. It is functional and is already handling 2 million tonnes (MT) of cargo every year. On completion of the three proposed phases of development, the port will have the capacity to handle 82MT of cargo per year by 2020. The port traffic will be generated through imports, exports and transit of goods. Chabahar Port is much safer than Gwadar Port in Pakistan’s troubled Baluchistan province, 76km from Chabahar. It will certainly take away Afghanistan’s transit trade through Pakistan. A recent report in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn highlighted that Afghan transit trade dropped by 54 per cent in the financial year 2012-13 partly due to development of Chabahar Port. The Iranians are counting on the rejuvenation of economic activities in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US and foreign troops from the land-locked nation for further development of Chabahar.

The Chinese are entering Chabahar in a big way. They have begun work on a heavy oil refinery there. A Chinese dredger is functional at Chabahar Port for land reclamation activities. A market selling Chinese goods has also been opened in Chabahar. It is reported that a Chinese company has interest in the development of the Chabahar petro-chemical complex.

Chabahar offers great strategic opportunity for India not only to enter Iran but also to reach Afghanistan and Central Asia. Apprehensions about the commercial potential of Chabahar are overstated because the Iranians are already investing in Chabahar and many other nations are also showing interest. In fact, the US $100 million investment that India is planning appears to be on the conservative side and should be increased. Indian companies will have good opportunity to supply equipment for the construction of the railway line to Zahidan. Since Chabahar lies only about 1,000km from Kandla port in Gujarat, a direct shipping line should be considered to bypass Dubai, give boost to direct India-Iran trade and enhance transit trade to Afghanistan and CIS.

A number of Indian official delegations and private companies have visited Chabahar but no worthwhile investment has been made or business deal concluded. This has disappointed the Iranian officials and businessmen. They think India is not serious. The local Baluchi population is friendly towards India and many speak fluent Urdu. Some traders regularly visit India to source Indian goods but they face problems transferring money and also in the absence of a direct shipping link. Indian Basmati rice, imitation jewellery and foodstuff, etc. are in good demand in that part of the world.

India will continue to face problems with regard to transit of goods to Afghanistan through Pakistan. The use of the Chabahar route can resolve access problems.

India’s involvement in Chabahar Port will also strengthen India-Iran ties which are increasingly becoming strategic in content. The lingering bitterness in Iran about India’s vote against Iran at the IAEA on the nuclear issue in 2005 will also lessen. India has stood by Iran through difficult times as it continued to import Iranian oil even at the time of sanctions and despite the closing down of payment channels. This is often not appreciated either in Iran or in India. Indian oil import from Iran averaged over 200,000 barrels per day in 2013. Two-way trade was over US $16 billion. India needs to build an independent relation with Iran without affecting ties with Saudi Arabia, GCC or the US. Our diplomacy should be aimed at deepening strategic partnerships with GCC as well as Iran considering that relations with one do not contradict ties with the other.

The likelihood of a rapprochement between Iran and the West will increase Iran’s importance. Chabahar will certainly gain from this rapprochement. If India does not enter Chabahar now, it may be too late and more expensive to do so later. Increased Indian presence in Chabahar now will pay rich dividends later. India should adopt a long-term strategic vision and not a narrow commercial approach towards the development of Chabahar Port and investment in Chabahar Free Zone.

The author is director general, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

Email: [email protected]

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 04 Jun 2014 18:23

Sushma's MEA is putting this Chindu farticle on their website (is that endorsement ?) by "peace at any cost" Satyabrata Pal who says that India should not include stop terrorism first policy and should include Kashmir in its composite dialogue with Pakistan to help the standing of civilian govt in Pakistan. Also he wants finalising India’s offers on Siachen and Sir Creek be part of the agenda for the first 100 days of modi's govt. Not good signs at all.

An opportunity to seal a deal with Pakistan

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Jun 2014 18:40

it's one of a dozen or more articles, why see a CT in this ?

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jun 2014 21:29

schinnas wrote:Myanmar leadership should have been invited as one of the neighbors with whom we share very long and porous border. I was disappointed by the non-inclusion of Burma, took it as a signal that North East is yet to get the sufficient mind share it deserves in Delhi. Mostly our NE states are considered as an after thought. I hope Modi-ji changes this by grooming visible impactful leaders from NE and giving some of them key portfolios in our government. NE states only get token inconsequential representation in our cabinet so far. Time to change that. Time for Indian media and population to think Myanmar as our neighbor and invite it to SAARC.

Agree!! Non inclusion of Myanmar was a mistake IMO.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jun 2014 21:29

vijaykarthik wrote:It would have been nice to see an invite out to Putin too, perhaps? Will have set a lot of alarum bells a-ringin' !

Putin should be guest of honor at next RD parade.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 04 Jun 2014 21:31

Rahul M wrote:it's one of a dozen or more articles, why see a CT in this ?

It just shows though absymal management of media from MEA types. They have no clue of what they put out. Similarly from DRDO/CSIR etc - they host snippets of articles which attack them, even those completely factually messed up. They just don't get what it conveys.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Jun 2014 21:52

yup. it has all kind of articles there. no connecting thread. very sloppy.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Jun 2014 15:27

The idea is probably to show the multitude of views and opinions that proliferate in India, rendering decision-making complex and at the same time giving us a million legitimate excuses to do the things we want and to not do what we don't want. Most other democracies play the same game.

It is also cheaper than creating another department to sit down, read and analyse daily journalistic output and then deciding what to put on the site and what not to put. This seems a fairly random selection. No doubt, some will get in by dint of influence...

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 05 Jun 2014 18:16

So Modi has decided to make Bhutan the first country he will visit. Personally have been exhorting that the PM redevelop the worn Dharmic strands with Bhutan, Nepal, Tibet in my blog and several tweets on this. My latest one on Bhutan was just last week:

schinnas · Post by **schinnas** » 05 Jun 2014 22:55

I hope Modi-ji provides an economic package to Bhutan and improve road connectivity and provide a rail connection to Bhutan. Modi can convert INR to be a Bharat Rupee for all countries in the sub-continent and provide military coverage similar to NATO. With the exception of Pakistan, other countries in the sub-continent will find such an arrangement beneficial. However, it should be respecting of their independence.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Jun 2014 14:44

Today is the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy.Huge commemorative functions/celebrations are being held,with the "best of the west" all in attendence,including HM the Queen. The BBC is telecasting live coverage of the events.In one ceremony,the names of the nations that participated were read out,"Commonwealth nations from Australia,canada,New Zealand and S.Africa".No mention of India at all which sent 2.5 million soldiers to fight the white man's war! The callous attitude of the Atlanticists,Western nations who used Indian soldiers as cannon fodder in both WW1 and WW2,is truly condemnable. Russia too is simply forgotten,the nation that lost the most casualties in the war,27 million.If it was not for Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk,France would still be under the jackboot of the Nazis! It was Russian troops who one must remember who rolled into Berlin first.

I hope our MEA never forget this when we exchange diplomatic niceties during Mr.Modi's visit to the US and West in the future.The US wants us to repeat the same as their proxies in an anti-China military axis in the future.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Jun 2014 05:40

The collapse of the Shimla Accord: Inder Malhotra

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 12 Jun 2014 13:40

Towards a change in regional ties - G.Parthasarathy, The Business Line

President Barack Obama has set a firm schedule for the total withdrawal of American combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.

The Pakistan military establishment will now finalise strategies for a progressive takeover of Afghanistan by its Taliban and Haqqani proxies. India’s predominantly economic role in Afghanistan will accordingly have to be augmented by imaginative regional diplomacy involving Iran, Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbours, China and Russia. At the same time, the US, its NATO allies and Japan have to be approached to keep funds flowing for Afghanistan’s national security and economic development.

India and Afghanistan

A mere India-Pakistan dialogue on Afghanistan would be like staging Hamlet without the king of Denmark. Strategically, an effective India-Iran-Afghanistan dialogue is also essential for the development of Iran’s Chah Bahar port and to provide India guaranteed and easy access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. This is the only way to overcome Pakistani efforts to undermine India’s influence in these regions.

When in Delhi, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai alluded to his disappointment at India’s response to his requests for military assistance. This can be remedied, in consultation with Russia, given the huge surpluses we have in Soviet era equipment, ranging from tanks to fighter aircraft. Given Pakistan’s stated concerns about Indian involvement in Afghanistan, New Delhi should propose a regular trilateral India-Pakistan-Afghanistan dialogue.

Soon after his swearing-in, Prime Minister Narendra Modi interacted with the charismatic, outgoing Afghanistani president. The two leaders had spoken earlier, when Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists had laid siege to our consulate in Herat. This was the eighth attack on Indian missions and mission personnel in Afghanistan. All these attacks have been executed by terrorists from the Taliban, the Haqqani Network or the Lashkar-e-Taiba, with clear evidence in three cases of ISI involvement.

After the swearing-in

However, the Prime Minister set the ball rolling on these knotty issues from the word ‘go’ when he engaged regional leaders soon after his swearing-in. He managed to make a purposeful beginning with Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. Modi might have set the stage for back channel talks with Pakistan on a range of issues.

It must also be said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif showed statesmanship in overcoming domestic opposition from the army and others, by attending the ceremony. He, more than others in Pakistan, recognises the perilous state of Pakistan’s economy and the role of protégés of the ISI in promoting religious extremism and sectarian violence within Pakistan.

At the same time, his effectiveness in dealing with terrorism by acting against his protégés like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the sectarian protégés of his Muslim League Party, like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Sipah-e-Sahiba, is inherently limited.

While Sharif was in Delhi, he told a senior Indian journalist privately that while he would not insist on continuation of the Composite Dialogue Process, he would be agreeable to high-level back channel dialogue on Jammu and Kashmir and terrorism.

The government will also have to decide on how it is going to act on the framework for a settlement on Jammu and Kashmir reached in 2007, through “back channel negotiations” between special envoys of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf.

Discussions on this framework were resumed last year, in Dubai. This negotiated framework was largely based on Manmohan Singh’s speech in Amritsar on March 24, 2006, averring that while borders cannot be redrawn, we can work towards making them “irrelevant” or “just lines on a map”.

He had also stated that people on both sides of the Line of Control could then move freely across the line and cross-LoC economic cooperation and trade could be promoted. All this was premised on respect for the “sanctity” of the LoC, as Sharif had solemnly assured President Bill Clinton on July 4, 1999.

Implementation of the framework on J&K agreed to in back channel talks is said to have required no legislative or constitutional amendment. With the Himalayan snows melting, it remains to be seen whether the Pakistan army adheres to Sharif’s pledge on July 4, 1999, to respect the “sanctity” of the LoC.

Message to Lanka

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse was told that India expected him to abide by assurances he had given of moving beyond the 13th Amendment in the devolution of powers to the Provincial Government in Jaffna. Sadly, Colombo has not done itself a service by continuing the suffocating army presence in the Northern Province and by curbing and undermining the powers and authority of Chief Minister Wigneswaran.

India has also given an assurance that it will spare no effort to continue its massive assistance programme of relief and rehabilitation for Tamils and for getting the Sri Lankan government to act on recommendations of its “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission”.

India has allocated an estimated $1.3 billion (₹8,000 crore) for the relief and rehabilitation of Tamils in Sri Lanka. This crucial programme cannot be implemented effectively unless maturity and restraint are observed by all concerned in dealing with the democratically elected government in Sri Lanka, by eschewing the rhetoric whipped up by Sri Lankan Tamil expatriates.

In sum, the presence of the leaders of India’s South Asian neighbours and Mauritius at the swearing-in of Narendra Modi provided an opportunity for India to reassert its primacy in the region, despite its economic downturn and eroding influence in the face of significant Chinese inroads.

Our Pakistan-obsessed media made it seem that Nawaz Sharif was the sole guest of honour. There was much more that happened.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 15 Jun 2014 05:01

PM sets up Nepal date

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jun 2014 06:12

I was reading a book by J. N. Dixit and he says really good things about V K Krishna Menon.

Can you guys recommend a few good books on Mr. Menon? Dhanyavaad.