Indian Foreign Policy
Posted: 20 Oct 2006 09:50
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
No wonder our Foreign policy is messed up. If friendly countries in immediate neighbourhood like Bhutan are not in top 10, it shows the short-sightedness of our policy. It appears that the commercial aspect of the relationship has been given more prominence than the security and strategic aspects. Nothing wrong if we were sitting amidst friendly countries on all sides, but given our troubled neighbourhood, commerical and strategic relevance is totally inter-twined.Tilak wrote:China above Pak, America on top
AK Antony is expected to be RM.India is likely to get a new foreign minister in a cabinet reshuffle by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday, reports say.
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee is tipped to take over as the foreign minister, reports add.
Wah wah MEAwallah.....Belgium= Afganistan No wonder lot of mail addresed to me was diverted to BelgaumOfficials argued that there were some discrepancies in the way Bhutan, Belgium, Australia, Afghanistan and Thailand were all tied at 67 points.
Foreign minister Dr. Ahmed Shaheed is visiting India this week in a bid to enhance defence cooperation and reassure the Maldives’ most important ally that the government’s increasingly friendly relations with China are not designed to play the superpowers off one another.
He has also used the trip to dismiss the opposition MDP as ‘split’ between moderates and militants, and has called upon India to assist President Gayoom’s reform roadmap.
Shaheed met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday evening. The Indian press reported that they discussed a host of bilateral and regional issues including the expansion of economic ties and enlargement of cooperation in defence and education sectors.
After a meeting with Indian defence minister Pranab Mukherjee, Shaheed raised the possibility of increased defence expenditure.
'India has contributed greatly to capacity-building in our defence sector,' Shaheed told IANS.
He was careful to deny reports that the Chinese have established a naval and intelligence facility on an atoll leased by the Maldivian government.
Shaheed said that the claims of a military base were a ‘canard spread by the opposition’.
The foreign minister also called for Indian assistance with the reform roadmap.
"We want to get India involved in the democratic reform process. India has immense expertise in building of democratic institutions and we want to tap this expertise," he said.
"We want India's help in strengthening electoral machinery, training police personnel and judiciary and the development of media. India is the world's most populous democracy. Therefore, India is a natural source of expertise for us," he added.
Seeking to allay Indian concerns about China’s involvement in the archipelago, Shaheed said: "We see the world through the South Asian perspective. We see no country as having a greater stake in the stability and progress of the Maldives than India."
"In times of national need, India has been there and we can always count on India in the future.’’
In an interview with an Indian news website, Shaheed accused the opposition of only being interested in deposing Gayoom.
"Our vision of liberal democracy is one that protects fundamental rights of the people and involves creating lasting institutions that can empower people."
"We are trying to ensure that our democracy must have organic links to the environment in which it must operate. It must cater to the mindsets and sensibilities of the people," he said.
"The government's vision is that of a working liberal democracy. The opposition is focused on elections. The opposition is talking about a change of persons. What they want is to see Gayoom out. What we are talking about is a change of system.’’
Shaheed said he was confident that free and fair elections will take place in 2008, but he warned that "democracy must provide freedom and stability to people. It can't imperil the country's economy and it can't take the country into chaos."
Right, when all else fails, try what was failing again!Paul wrote: IMO time to start thinking of what the consequences are. It is possible that Pranabda may have moved to MEA to change direction of Foreign policy in a more traditional fashion.
are there no "Dhoti-hoist" exponents in the current parliament to insult this National enemy#1?Raju wrote:Hu may address joint session, Left approves
Sutirtho Patranobis
New Delhi, October 25
___________________
When Chinese President Hu Jintao visits India in November, he may do what his United States counterpart George Bush, did not in March -- address a joint sitting of Parliament.
In Bush's case, Washington itself was reluctant to press for this privilege, fearing the embarassment of a likely boycott by the left. In contrast the Communists are more than ready to welcome Hu.
Good enough. During Hu's "Joint Session", can you ask him to stand next to the Honourable Speaker?Raju wrote:Well..I knew of a certain parliamentarian, who when he got angry; used to strip the dhoti off the person standing next to him.
Where are the jingoist parties when they are needed the most. IIRC, wasn't it uncle Oscar who said China was enemy #1? Give hu a taste of democracy too - freedom to choose and boycottRaju wrote:Hu may address joint session, Left approves
Sutirtho Patranobis
New Delhi, October 25
___________________
When Chinese President Hu Jintao visits India in November, he may do what his United States counterpart George Bush, did not in March -- address a joint sitting of Parliament.
Hindustan Times
The reshuffle of the Union Cabinet has demonstrated that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was clearly influenced by the views of the Congress high command while allocating portfolios for two key ministries. The reshuffle was as much about bringing in AK Antony, whose integrity and honesty is beyond doubt, to the Ministry of Defence as it was about giving the External Affairs portfolio to Pranab Mukherjee, who was, at one time, tipped to take over as deputy Prime Minister as per speculation in political circles.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi scotched rumours of the appointment of a deputy PM, at the Nainital conclave. Now, by shifting Mukherjee to a new job, the Prime Minister has conveyed a strong message that there was no move to elevate the status of any member of the Cabinet. Mukherjee is expected to bring in his rich experience to the post, which he earlier held during P.V. Narasimha Rao’s regime for a period of 15 months. It will certainly help restore equity to the ministry, thus ending the domination of the PMO in the formulation of foreign policy.
His seniority and status as leader of the House in the Lok Sabha will ensure that PMO officials, associated with the making of foreign policy, will show greater regard to the MEA’s viewpoint. With his standing as a key person in the decision-making processes of successive Congress governments, Mukherjee has a degree of clout enjoyed by no other foreign minister in recent times. His shifting also indicates that there were never any plans to elevate his status.
The selection of Antony has been influenced by the fact that the Defence Ministry, embroiled as it was in the recent controversy over the purchase of Barak missilies during the NDA rule, is now headed by Mr Clean himself. However, there is also a viewpoint that Antony’s choice for the Defence Minister’s post has not been the best one, since the former Kerala Chief Minister may not be able to speak the idiom that jawans and defence officers are familiar with. He would have been an asset in a ministry with social justice dimensions or could even have excelled in the Home Ministry. But obviously, Antony has been chosen because of his impeccable credentials and to convey the signal that the Congress wants transparency in the Cabinet.
The second and more important signal sought to be conveyed through Antony’s appointment is that people of integrity will be encouraged to be a part of the government. Those already in the council of ministers, and unable to emulate the virtues common to the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister, may face the risk of being dropped in the future. In fact, Antony will perfectly complement the PM and the two will help in giving the government an honest image. This is not to suggest that others are dishonest, but the high standards set by these two would form the basis for future image projections.
The reshuffle has also demonstrated that the party is stronger than ever before. The government cannot ignore its basic views, whether in the sphere of ministry-making or in policy formulation. At Nainital, Sonia Gandhi had stated that the party was not opposed to SEZs. But, that care should be taken to ensure that prime agricultural land was not acquired for the purpose. Soon after this, the government changed its position regarding SEZs and those who were initially very vocal on the subject, all of a sudden, seemed to agree with her. In an interview on Saturday, she denied that the SEZ policy was cleared by her. Even though she said that she did not expect every ministry to clear things with her, it is evident that the ramifications of not doing so would be strong and wide-ranging and could put some ministers or policy supporters in an embarrassing position.
The reshuffle seems to have had a limited purpose. Both the Congress president and the PM have left several questions about regional, coalition and generational imbalances unresolved. There is a view that some states are over-represented in the Cabinet vis-a-vis others. On the induction of younger leaders, Sonia has already made it known that she would prefer that they gain more experience before they are crowned. This is rightly so. Experience plays an important role in understanding governance — and only experienced youngsters had been rewarded.
Ajay Maken, for instance, was elected thrice to the Delhi Assembly and was parliamentary secretary to the Chief Minister, a minister and the Speaker before he defeated Jagmohan in the New Delhi constituency. There was no hesitation in choosing him for a ministerial berth. Similarly, Bharat Solanki was sent to Gujarat as the PCC president because he too had past experience. There seems to be a well chalked-out strategy where younger MPs will be given important positions only when they are acquainted with unfamiliar areas.
Coalition imbalance may remain as these are compulsions of realpolitiks. For instance, all major portfolios in the government other than the railways and agriculture are with the Congress. This may continue for the time being. Apart from its higher numbers of MPs, the Congress has to ensure the PM’s comfort level in the allocation of portfolios.
The reshuffle is certainly a precursor to a bigger one at a time nearer to the assembly elections. It also may now lead to changes in the party organisation and pave the way for the appointment of new governors. But the Sonia-PM team, flanked by Mukherjee, Antony and others symbolises stability of the coalition as well as the fact that there are no contradictions within the government and the party. Between us.
Think inside the box 11/3/2006 9:13:55 PM
- By Brahma Chellaney
What India needs is a credible, sustained counter-terror strategy. What it gets is never-ending political rhetoric. There is still no sign that a coherent strategy is being evolved, let alone being put into practice. After every major terrorist strike, the nation hears brave but empty words from government leaders to defeat the forces of terror. Then official New Delhi goes back to its familiar ways, until a major terror attack again stirs up the leadership to make fresh vows.
Given the way India has become an easy target for transnational extremists, it is only a matter of time before the terrorists strike again at a place and time of their choice. In fact, a new report by the online strategic intelligence firm, Stratfor, is titled, "India, Ripe for Another Militant Strike?"
Under Atal Behari Vajpayee’s government, terrorism morphed from hit-and-run attacks to daring assaults on military camps and symbols of national power, as the then Prime Minister vowed "zero tolerance" against terrorism and then declared aar par ki ladai. Now, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, even when terrorists strike brutally under the nose of the government, authorities present a face of helplessness. Dr Singh, for instance, has sought to rationalise his decision to embrace the sponsor of terror as a partner against terror by asking, "What other option did we have?"
No western democracy allows any major act of terror to go unpunished. In contrast, India has come to stoically live with high incidence of terrorism, taking terror strikes in its stride as if they were the products of its immutable geography or destiny. Not only is there little political will in India to wage its own war on terror, but also the instrumentalities of state have been allowed to decline and decay.
Indian decision-makers give little thought to why their country has turned into a laboratory for international terrorists, who try out and perfect techniques in the world’s largest democracy before replicating them in the West. Among the acts first tried out against Indian targets and then repeated elsewhere are attacks on symbols of state authority, the midair bombing of a commercial jetliner and coordinated strikes on a city transportation system. Methodology employed by the US Central Intelligence Agency’s Office of Terrorism Analysis shows the highest number of terrorist attacks occurring in India.
Yet India has yet to articulate a counter-terror strategy with clear objectives and means. Nor has New Delhi been able to convince the world about the Pakistani establishment’s direct culpability in the daring acts of terror carried out in India.
Many Indians had hoped that the October 8, 2005 earthquake that struck Pakistan’s terrorist-infested areas the hardest would lower the terror level against India. But the terror attacks in India from Mumbai to Varanasi, and from New Delhi to Bangalore, have revealed an increase in the trans-border movement of Pakistan-trained operatives. According to the Army chief, Pakistan is now infiltrating terrorists through new routes, including the Rajasthan, Bangladesh and Nepal borders.
Yet, what Indians read in their national press and what the rest of the world gets to read are two different worlds. For example, a recent New York Times story reported on what it called "a new twist to the abiding India-Pakistan rift over who is responsible for acts of terror on Indian soil, and what to do about it." This is what the October 23 New Delhi-datelined despatch stated: "Neither country seems to be able to veer from an old and familiar script. After every terrorist act, the Indian government blames Pakistan-based groups, and the Pakistani government goads India to furnish specific evidence. India responds by saying that crime suspects, including the leaders of banned groups, like Lashkar-e-Taiba, continue to find shelter in Pakistan, despite Indian demands. Pakistan counters that they have not been charged with crimes. The accusations fly in the other direction as well. Pakistan maintains that India supports a rebel movement among tribal groups in its western Baluchistan Province — a charge India denies."
If the New Delhi-based correspondent of a major American newspaper is not convinced about Pakistan’s involvement in terror strikes in India, how does the Indian government expect others in the world to be convinced?
Nothing better illustrates India’s faltering approach than the wanton way it has confused the world and its own citizens over the terrorist links to the Mumbai train bombings, which left more than 200 people dead. The national security adviser first pronounced, judge-like, that the evidence on the Pakistani connection to the bombings was "pretty good" but not "clinching." The home secretary chimed in with his own judgment: the evidence, he declared, was "fairly solid," with his qualifier, "fairly," adding or subtracting little to the NSA’s claim. Then, like the court of appeals, the PM ruled there was "credible evidence" on Pakistan’s involvement, except that days earlier he had publicly judged that country as a fellow victim of and partner against terror — a verdict he still sticks to.
India’s self-goal epitomises the manner it has fallen victim to its own contradictions. The PM of late has developed a tendency to contradict himself in the same sentence. For example, at Thiruvananthapuram last Wednesday, he said: "We are trying to develop friendly ties with Pakistan despite difficulties arising out of their support for terrorist operations directed against India." What may be more worrying is that the PM actually does not see a contradiction in his seeking to build "friendly ties" with a state that he admits is aiding "terrorist operations" against India.
Despite a national furore, the PM is determinedly pushing ahead with his decision to set up a joint counter-terror mechanism with Pakistan, overriding the concerns of professionals within the system. Yet the PM is unsure whether his radical move would succeed, admitting he is banking on little more than hope: "We have agreed to the mechanism. Let us see how it works. I hope Pakistan is serious about it."
By now, the PM’s style of functioning has become known: when he wishes to put an issue on the back burner, he sets up a panel or a commission, but when he sets his mind on doing something, he presents the nation with a fait accompli. Having sprung a surprise on the nation, he then keeps up the refrain that there is no change in policy. His latest gem is that "there is no change" in foreign policy under him, only an effort on his part to "widen India’s horizons."
Semantics apart, India’s counter-terror policy has never been in greater disarray than today. Not only is there a lack of direction on where India is headed against transnational terrorism, but also there is a lack of concern over what the country has been through. The first anniversary of the New Delhi bombings passed last Sunday without the country or even the city remembering those who fell to the terrorists’ bombs. Contrast this with the way London observed the anniversary of its subway bombings. Yet the fact is that more people died in the synchronised New Delhi bombings than in the London attacks.
Terrorism represents an existential battle that will determine whether India stays a free, secular, united state. The PM himself admits that terrorism constitutes "the biggest challenge" to India. Yet, strangely, the Indian republic is unable to get its act together to wage a concerted war on terror, backed by unflinching resolve.
When escalating terrorism demands action, India has become the master of inaction, making itself an easier prey for terrorists and their sponsors. Without a concerted response, no system can keep up morale. Inaction not only damages a system’s credibility but also saps public confidence to the extent that necessary leads on the movement or hideouts of terrorists may not be forthcoming from citizens.
Instead of acting to stop further attacks by going after terrorist cells and networks and those that harbour or aid such extremists, India seems more interested in collecting and presenting evidence of Pakistan’s terror links. Under Vajpayee, the emphasis was on presenting the evidence to the United States in particular. Now India wishes to present the evidence to Pakistan itself. Returning from his South Africa tour, the PM proclaimed: "If we have evidence, we will hand it to them (Pakistan). We will test the waters."
No state victim of terror has ever emphasised evidence collection as a substitute to counteraction. But India is India — always unique.
Having failed on other fronts, India now is intent on making history: it will seek to convince terrorist-patron Pakistan in high dudgeon through the joint mechanism to own up to its sponsorship of terror. Please. Even if New Delhi had a video that captured General Pervez Musharraf ordering a bomb attack on an Indian city, it will not persuade a military-ruled Pakistan to sever its ties with terrorist elements. After all, the Pakistan military values terrorism as its main instrument to mount pressure on India and wring out concessions in negotiations.
How far divorced from reality does New Delhi intend to become? Before wanting to think outside the box, it ought to learn to think inside the box so it brings credit to Indian democracy, not comfort to terrorists and their patrons.
I dont know what he means by punished.RaviBg wrote:No western democracy allows any major act of terror to go unpunished.
So, let us see now, the architect of the Iraq War, Wolfowitz, is advising India not to be "imperialist" and this traitorous lifafa/sellout C. Rajamohan seems to think that India should see Wolfowitz's "wisdom" and follow the US's "do as I say, not as I do" dictum... Rajamohan's words have come out of the US SD many times before (people may remember Al Quolin Bin Powell's sanctimonious words to that effect), but I guess they have their agents in India do that job nowadays.Last week, Paul Wolfowitz, the president of World Bank, slammed Chinese and Indian economic policies towards Africa. Even as he quickly retracted at the storm of political reaction from China, Wolfowitz underscored the point that Beijing and New Delhi should not repeat the mistakes of the US and the West in bank-rolling for decades such unsavoury regimes as that of Mobutu Sese-seko in Zaire.
After decades of seeing themselves as victims of imperialism, China and India will find the tag of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism shocking if not distasteful. Yet Beijing and New Delhi must confront a new reality. The greater their economic and political capacity to influence outcomes elsewhere in the world, the stronger will be international scrutiny of their policies
Actually, MMS is not doing anything that the "nationalist" BJP didn't. They are both following some script us novices can only infer, so politicizing this just muddies the water. Even now, the peace talks are not relly giving away much, but what else can be done with the pakis in the short term? Do you think there are other options for handling pakistan? Let us keep politics out of this.Brahma Chellaney only confirms what I have had in mind regarding MMS.
This is just psy-ops. India and China would have to demand that stake and never it is going to be given to them by the existing powers, they are not even going to accomodate them without a fight and infact will try to scuttle and choke them at every point. They want these two countries take these stakes only with their permission and under their guidence. Never gonna happen.Western liberals criticise China and India for being free riders in the international system and taking advantage of the order and stability being maintained by other great powers. They want Beijing and New Delhi to prove they are stake-holders in the global order and work for its maintenance.
To be sure, they are not the only instances where major powers have “elevatedâ€
I agree with you, but what do you propose he should do? Leading us into a war can cost our "growing economy". I think we should just increase our covert war against ISI, LeT & so on. Spend more on RAW, IB, make them have the latest tech and start operating in countries in the gulf(since thats where most of the finance is), uproot ISI activity in Bangladesh, Nepal etc. Give them more support. It's cheaper than going to war. But then again, if MMS really wanted to halt terrorism, he would do something about it rather than just pay lip service.CRamS wrote:The problem is that MMS is not outraged by Puki terror as any Indian nationalist ought to be. He views Puki terror against India in the same manner as the western racists do: violence is endemic in the 'South Asian' region and everyone Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs are guilty. In other words, Islamic terror against the west is unadulterated evil, but in India's case, communal violence in India and Paki treachery in the use of Islamic terror against India as an instrument of policy are at the same moral equivalence.
I think refugees from Pakistan, such as Gujral, MMS, or Advani should not be allowed in the corridors of power. They have too many psychological issues arising from trauma and loss of 'home', which distorts their psyche when it comes to Pakistan. They end up succumbing to a deep inner desire to make 'everything all right' with their erstwhile homeland.Rye wrote:CRamS wrote:Actually, MMS is not doing anything that the "nationalist" BJP didn't. They are both following some script us novices can only infer, so politicizing this just muddies the water. Even now, the peace talks are not relly giving away much, but what else can be done with the pakis in the short term? Do you think there are other options for handling pakistan? Let us keep politics out of this.Brahma Chellaney only confirms what I have had in mind regarding MMS.
KV Rao wrote:I think refugees from Pakistan, such as Gujral, MMS, or Advani should not be allowed in the corridors of power. They have too many psychological issues arising from trauma and loss of 'home', which distorts their psyche when it comes to Pakistan. They end up succumbing to a deep inner desire to make 'everything all right' with their erstwhile homeland.Rye wrote:CRamS wrote: Actually, MMS is not doing anything that the "nationalist" BJP didn't. They are both following some script us novices can only infer, so politicizing this just muddies the water. Even now, the peace talks are not relly giving away much, but what else can be done with the pakis in the short term? Do you think there are other options for handling pakistan? Let us keep politics out of this.
Taking it one step further, no one who is a lover of Urdu, ghazals, or shairi should be allowed to deal with Pakistan in any way. Too much searching for a bogus 'common culture.'
I am curious, is Pranab Mukherjee a refugee from East Pakistan / Bangladesh? Anyone know?KV Rao wrote: I think refugees from Pakistan, such as Gujral, MMS, or Advani should not be allowed in the corridors of power. They have too many psychological issues arising from trauma and loss of 'home', which distorts their psyche when it comes to Pakistan. They end up succumbing to a deep inner desire to make 'everything all right' with their erstwhile homeland.
Taking it one step further, no one who is a lover of Urdu, ghazals, or shairi should be allowed to deal with Pakistan in any way. Too much searching for a bogus 'common culture.'
I agree 400%.KV Rao wrote:I think refugees from Pakistan, such as Gujral, MMS, or Advani should not be allowed in the corridors of power. They have too many psychological issues arising from trauma and loss of 'home', which distorts their psyche when it comes to Pakistan. They end up succumbing to a deep inner desire to make 'everything all right' with their erstwhile homeland.Rye wrote:CRamS wrote: Actually, MMS is not doing anything that the "nationalist" BJP didn't. They are both following some script us novices can only infer, so politicizing this just muddies the water. Even now, the peace talks are not relly giving away much, but what else can be done with the pakis in the short term? Do you think there are other options for handling pakistan? Let us keep politics out of this.
Taking it one step further, no one who is a lover of Urdu, ghazals, or shairi should be allowed to deal with Pakistan in any way. Too much searching for a bogus 'common culture.'
While this ought to be true in theory, I don't believe it is the case in practice. Just take a look at the composition of NRI leftist-communist activists in the US. A surprising number of South Indians who ought not to be afflicted with the "culture-shulture" and "emotion-vimotion" syndrome with Terroristan.KV Rao wrote:I think refugees from Pakistan, such as Gujral, MMS, or Advani should not be allowed in the corridors of power. They have too many psychological issues arising from trauma and loss of 'home', which distorts their psyche when it comes to Pakistan. They end up succumbing to a deep inner desire to make 'everything all right' with their erstwhile homeland.
LONDON, November 4 (IranMania) - India's ambassador to Iran, Manbir Singh, said that his country did not face any particular problem for investing in Iran’s infrastructures, MNA reported.
Currently, we are negotiating to reach agreement on a number of contracts including the building of a steel production plant and a petrochemical production plant in Bandar Abbas, a port city in southern Iran on the Persian Gulf, the Indian official said adding that Indian firms are also planning to build a container depot in Chabahar,another port city located in southeast Iran.
Commenting on an Indian company’s cooperation with Iranian engineers in the development of a railway electric signals project in the Ray-Shahrud railroad, the Indian ambassador to Iran added that India was ready to cooperate in Iran’s other infrastructure projects, the Persian service of ISNA reported here on Friday.
He further referred to India’s investments in Iran’s central province of Semnan and said that the nation was reviewing the possibility of increasing its investments in the province.
Indian companies are prepared to build the Fahrej-Chabahar railroad project, the Indian official announced noting that his country was planning to make significant investments in different parts of Iran.