India And Asia

[Guest]

[quote name='Kaushal' date='Sep 10 2003, 01:49 PM'] However, i disagree with him on certain points, for example.. [/quote]

I'm a big fan of B Raman's writing too. I guess this is the second instance of me having to disagree with him. IIRC, he supports Art 370 wrt Kashmir - which I think should be abolished.



We need risk takers who will do the right think irrespective of what others think or how it plays in local politics.



B Raman has a nice full page article in last weeks India Abroad - a must read.

[Guest]

[quote name='rhytha' date='Sep 10 2003, 02:18 AM'] whats this Yom Kippur war? can any body tell briefly how it happened. And who is moshe dyan(spelling unsure)??. [/quote]

If I remember correctly our TSP neighbor lent couple of it's pilots to Arabs in that war against Israel. :thumbdowng

[Guest]

The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was mounted by Egypt and Syria to wrest the Sinai and the Golan Heights back from Israel. After some initial successes by Egypt , Israel crossed the Suez Canal aand threatened to advance to Cairo. But Sadat (unlike Nasser) was a shrewd man and had made his point and made peace with Israel.



Moshe Dayan (the one eyed general) was the hero of the 1967 war between Israel and Egypt (& Jordan and Syria) and was responsible for the victories in the Sinai peninsula.

[Guest]

It appears the India Israel relationship will blossom into a multi faceted one.



[url="http://www.indian-express.com/full_story.php?content_id=31305"]Sharon favours FTA; India Inc is happy[/url]







Ens Economic Bureau







New Delhi, September 10: Israel has expressed its keenness to enter into a free-trade agreement (FTA) with India. It already has similar agreements with the European Union and the US, visiting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told industry captains here on Wednesday.



He also called upon Indian businessmen to participate in the disinvestment programme in his country.





Addressing a business meet organised by Ficci and CII, Sharon said there was immense potential for greater cooperation in diversified areas. “We will continue to develop our relations with India,” he added.



Meanwhile, CII, Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute and Manufacturers Association of Israel have set up an Indo-Israel CEOs forum, comprising senior business heads from both the countries to deliberate on trade and economic issues. The forum, comprising CEOs from both countries, will initially meet annually in each country once.



CII president Anand Mahindra said India’s burgeoning telecommunications infrastructure provided an ideal market for Israeli technology and companies in this field.



Ficci vice-president Y.K. Modi suggested that the two countries should have an FTA which would facilitate Israeli companies in targeting the Indian market. “Ficci would make an effort to take a delegation to Israel later this year,” he said.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=31461"]Ink barely dry on Israel story, Delhi calls Arab envoys for little edit[/url]





Questions from Arabs: Trade with us $10 bn (with Israel $1.2 bn), what about your diaspora, your sense of history? what about it ?





Jyoti Malhotra









New Delhi, September 12: The sense of disquiet in the Arab world over the official bond of brotherhood forged on the banks of the Yamuna between India and Israel this week brought all 18 Arab ambassadors accredited to New Delhi for a briefing to the MEA early this morning.



After more than an hour, there were more questions revealed than answers. But the frank conversation between Indian officials and their Arab counterparts is said to have led to much soul-searching not only about the new friendliness with Israel but also the growing silences between New Delhi and the Arab world.





As one Arab ambassador remarked, ‘‘The overwhelming reception that India gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon makes us ask ourselves, ‘What happened to 50 years of Indo-Arab relations?’ Perhaps it was never built on strong enough foundations,’’ he added.



Interestingly, the afternoon was taken up by another briefing on the Israeli prime minister’s visit—this time with all the European ambassadors or their charge d’affaires accredited to India.



Still, there was one interesting difference. While the Europeans had requested for a briefing on Israel, it was the MEA which took the lead to invite the Arab diplomats and reassure them about India’s support for the Palestinian cause.



By way of explanation, the Indian side is said to have pointed to the joint statement which clearly refers to New Delhi’s decision to abide by UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397, essentially calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine’s territories.



Moreover, New Delhi continued to take a dim view of Israel’s restrictions on Palestine president Yasser Arafat, including those on his movements outside Ramallah. The possibility of Arafat’s expulsion by Israel, the Indian side said, would definitely have a ‘‘negative effect’’ on the collapsing Middle East process.



Arab diplomats admitted they were also quite keen on getting a sense of India’s position on ‘‘terrorism’’ and how it impacted on their region. New Delhi is believed to have told them that it did not believe that the fight against terrorism should be taken ‘‘to the roots.’’



And that this view was clearly different from the Israeli position, which had no qualms about ‘‘targeted assassinations’’ or ‘‘collateral damage,’’ where large numbers of innocent civilians were injured alongside the target the Israelis intended to damage.



The 45-minute conversation with the Europeans, in contrast, was hardly leavened with the same undercurrent of emotion. The European diplomats seemed equally interested in the details of the ‘‘strategic defence’’ relationship with Israel.



It may be recalled that in the wake of news reports about the sale of the Israeli ‘Phalcon’ early warning system to New Delhi, Pakistan publicly protested, saying that the sale would forever ‘‘alter’’ the balance of power in the region. Subsequently, some European nations had also gone on record to agree with Pakistan.



But it was the earlier briefing that seemed to have captured the tones of grey in India’s relationship with the Arab world. Such as, what did the ‘‘meagre’’ $1.2 billion trade relationship between India and Israel really mean, when India and the Arab world had topped $10 billion? What about the enormous Indian diaspora (about 4 million people) in the Gulf, which sent the largest remittances home, amounting to nearly $5 billion annually? And crucially, what about the whopping $17-18 billion that India spent on buying crude oil from this region?



Often, the conversation meandered beyond the immediacy of the Sharon visit, incorporating the Arab viewpoint on India’s omission from the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) when it had the second largest Muslim population in the world, on Pakistan, as well as on the divisions within the region on Israel.



There was no ‘‘zero sum game’’ between India, Israel and the Arab world, the envoys were reassured, that India would continue to hold dear its traditional ties with them even as it went ahead and forged new ones with Tel Aviv.



‘‘That explanation seems to have really hit home,’’ one Arab ambassador remarked, adding, ‘‘There clearly seems to be a delinking between Israel and the Arab world in India’s mind. And no matter what happens in Palestine, Israel-India relations will continue to grow.’’ the point here is that India is not going to be more catholic than the Pope. In the past India was in the ridiculous situation where Egypt had an ambassador to Jerusalem but India did not

[Guest]

[url="http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/Opinion.asp?ArticleID=97496"]Abdullah Al Madani: Indo-Israeli ties: Arabs have none but themselves to blame [/url]

[Guest]

S Das Gupta is right on the money. Mathematically precise reciprocity is impossible to achieve because Washington does not see the terrorist state as a major cause of global terrorism and until that happens there will continue to be glitches in the Indo-Israel-USA relationship. But this is where the Indian leadership should earn its salary , meager though it may be by American standards. Some creativity needs to be the order of the day to overcome sticky problems like Iran and Pakistan.



[url="http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/15guest.htm"]The politics of reciprocity[/url]



September 15, 2003



In an age of acronyms, emoticons and colourful spelling, diplomacy stands out as a rarefied island. Words, any South Block mandarin will tell you, are at the heart of international relations. When the lights went out all over Europe in 1914 it was, as the German foreign minister was to rue, in defence of a nebulous word, "neutrality".



It was the nitpicking over Tibet's "sovereignty" and "suzerainty" that first permitted Jawaharlal Nehru to turn a blind eye to Chinese expansionism. And it was the novel interpretation of non-alignment that drove India to slavishly endorse the shenanigans of the evil empire and end up on the losing side of the Cold War.



Last week, even as the unlikely coalition of clerics and commissars turned apoplectic, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon confronted India with another troubling term.



"Reciprocity", he insisted, must constitute the basis of Indo-Israeli ties. In return for the Phalcon radar system and sensitive intelligence reports on terrorism, Israel has asked India to disavow anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and other multilateral bodies. More important, it has requested India to be mindful of Israel's security concerns before excessively cosying up to Iran.



At one level, these parameters of reciprocity should be unexceptionable. Apart from repudiating an obnoxious anti-Semitism, it makes little sense for India to blindly kow-tow to those Arab countries that don't even consider the terrorist attack on Parliament in December 2001 as being worthy of condemnation.



As an island of grit, enterprise and democracy in West Asia, Israel may not be comparable to the oil-rich sheikhdoms that employ lakhs of Indians. But don't be blinded by the volume of remittances to Kerala and Hyderabad alone. It is fairly common knowledge that the bumpy road to Washington runs through Jerusalem.



In purely strategic terms, the friendship of Sharon is worth more than the mindless deification of Hamas suicide bombers.



However, when it comes to the Israeli distaste for Iran, reciprocity runs into problems. From the US-Israeli perspective, Iran is an almighty nuisance. It has nurtured and sustained the terrorist Hizbollah in Lebanon. It is stealthily acquiring a nuclear capability with discreet assistance from Pakistan and North Korea. The prospect of Ayatollah Khomeini's heirs blessed with N-weapons leaves the US alliance absolutely petrified.



Should it worry New Delhi as well? For India, Iran, however, is a comforting factor in an otherwise troubled region. We have old civilisational links, despite folk memories of Nadir Shah's pogrom, which are supplemented by economic and strategic considerations.



Apart from being a major energy source, Iran is India's access to parts of Central Asia and, most important, Afghanistan. On top of that, Iran also borders Pakistan. It is an indispensable link in the encirclement of a hostile neighbour.



Consequently, as Indian officials have told both the US and Israel, our relationship with Iran is non-negotiable. It is grounded in the same pragmatic considerations as the US's benign indulgence of Pakistan.



Yet, the worries persist. In theory, Iran serves as a perfect counterweight to Pakistan, with the Shia-Sunni conflict injecting an additional dimension. But Iran has its own radical agenda which was put in cold storage by the protracted Iran-Iraq war.



Now, with the guerrilla war in Iraq presenting a wonderful opportunity to derail the internationalist fantasies of the Bush administration, a nuclear Iran can play havoc with geopolitics. Its ripple effects will even be felt in Kashmir. Already there are sections of the Hurriyat Conference that wants Iran to play a mediatory role in Kashmir.



India is not in a position to influence Iran's N-programme one way or another. Nor does it make sense for New Delhi to add its voice to the US-led chorus, not as long as Iran serves an important strategic role and there are no visible alternatives.



For India, the greatest security threat is a Pakistan well versed in the art of manipulating Washington. Till this epicentre of terrorism is neutralised, India cannot endorse all of Israel's concerns, however legitimate.



The key to Sharon's reciprocity lies neither in Delhi nor Jerusalem but in Washington. Imaginative diplomacy calls for nudging the feisty Jewish leader into conveying that message where it really matters, where Israel counts more than India.



The future of the US-Israel-India axis depends on whether or not Washington's war on terror is universally applicable. At present, it excludes Pakistan.

[Guest]

Strictly speaking this goes in the India/US thread, but it has repercussions on India's relations with the West Asian countries. Swapan Das Gupta feels that Washington is excluding I'bad from its war on terror. The situation is in reality more complicated than that. There is no question in my mind that the ultimate aim of the US in West Asia is the emasculation of the KSA, especially its royal family.

The US has decided (wrongly imview) that they cannot fight too many fronts at the same time and have chosen not to confront the Pakis with their gloves off. However, sentiment in Washington is running heavily against the terrorist state, so all bets are off as to how long this marriage of convenience will last.



[url="http://online.wsj.com/barrons/article/0,,SB106340946955691500-search,00.html?collection=barrons%2F30day&vql_string=pakistan%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29"]BARRON'S ONLINE, SEPTEMBER 15, 2003[/url]



FINDING THE WAR

The "central front" is one of many battlefields



WHERE IS THE BATTLEFIELD in America's war on terrorism? In this solemn anniversary week, there are many possible answers.



The "central front" may be in Iraq, where "enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand," as President Bush declared the other day. U.S. forces are taking casualties there, in what appears to be a war of attrition. But that front has two theaters, and the more important one is the more theatrical: Former tyrants and would-be tyrants are waging war against the American people's will to fight.



The military battlefield in Afghanistan is another important front. Ultimate victory against terrorists and their allies there seems as far away as in Iraq, if not farther. In fact, the possibility of victory on that front seems to be across the border in Pakistan , in mountains where a dangerously weak government cannot govern.



The diplomatic front in Pakistan is challenging. We have an ally who does not dare to be a public friend. That government does not dare to give American troops permits to hunt al-Qaeda, and does not dare to effectively curb the terrorists it has sponsored in Kashmir. And, of course, that government possesses nuclear weapons, which some have dared to refer to ominously as the "Islamic Bomb." We may not wish to be seen changing Pakistan , but it must change.



There is a similar front in Saudi Arabia, with complexity added by its financial power and its Muslim evangelism. There too, a grudgingly allied government has given aid and comfort to people who are its own enemies and ours. It finances religious schools teaching hatred around the world. Its charities buy weapons for terrorists and support the families of suicide bombers. So far, we are fighting the money more than the people who provide it. We may not wish to be seen changing Arabia, but it must change.



There are fronts all over the developed world, where security agents and spies fight secret wars against underground enemies. They should not be seen, and their victories may go unreported.



Another front is in Baltimore, and New Hampshire, and Iowa, and South Carolina, and wherever the Democratic candidates for President come together to debate what they see as President Bush's war in Iraq and Attorney General John Ashcroft's war at home. The nine candidates must remember that they are asking the American people for authority to conduct the war differently, not to abandon it. And the Republican administration must accept their opponents' right to criticize strategy and tactics in strong terms, without charging back that they have no zeal, or worse, are deserters in the war. Our enemies and our friends will judge us and our cause by how we fight as well as where we fight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial Page Editor Thomas G. Donlan receives e-mail at tg.donlan@barrons.com.

[Guest]

There is no question in my mind that the ultimate aim of the US in West Asia is the emasculation of the KSA, especially its royal family.

Kaushal: The ruler of KSA has serious health issues and there's a lot of backroom struggle going on between the moderates and exteremists for power (don't remember their names, one faction is led by US amb. Prince Bandar's father). Being in Iraq gives US a gallery view of this battle and if needed a convenient launch pad it to intervene.

The US has decided (wrongly imview) that they cannot fight too many fronts at the same time and have chosen not to confront the Pakis with their gloves off.

I think US is right in not confronting the Pakis at this moment. After 9/11/01 - yes they should have daisy-cut all the way to Kabul starting from Karachi. US lost it's opportunity and is currently spread itself too thin in Iraq, Afghanistan, Phillipines etc on this charade called war on terror when the terror central operates freely. Did you read the latest Observer - says a new 9/11 is being hatched in Paki at the moment :mad

However, sentiment in Washington is running heavily against the terrorist state, so all bets are off as to how long this marriage of convenience will last.

As long as military stays in power and does its bidding, Pakis will be a vassal state. In words of ex-military chief Aslam Beg, Pakistan will function as a condom which is discarded after use.

[Guest]

I didnt want to start another thread just for Myanmar, so i changed the title of the existing thread.Note the word realism can mean both the dictionary meaning or the more pregnant version prevalent among the practitioners of 'realist strategy' in America.



[url="http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=42065"]Realism in India-Myanmar Relations[/url]



N Chandra Mohan



Signs of India’s more “realistic” diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world are in evidence not just with reference to Israel but also with neighbouring Myanmar. The latter’s military regime has come under global criticism for its treatment of Nobel laureate Aung Sang Suu Kyi, but India’s relationship has been burgeoning with its Yangon, especially since the early 1990s. What is responsible for this shift in India’s stance?



Renaud Egreteau, re-search fellow at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, IEP, Paris, has his own take on this relationship which he sees as evolving from Nehruvian idealism to realism. The idealist phase lasted for three decades since General Ne Win came to power in 1962, during which India had very little to do with the military dictatorship. Myan-mar then existed under a self-imposed isolationism.



India’s rethink on its relationship with Myanmar (then Burma) dates from the uprising and coup d’etat in 1988 and the influx of refugees into North-east Indian camps. Between 1988 to 1992, the idealist phase lingered on as our policy vacillated between support for the democracy movement and continuing with diplomatic isolation. Egreteau argues that 1993 indeed was the year when the “realist U turn” took place in India’s policy towards Myanmar.



Several factors were responsible for this, including the China factor. The fact that the dragon had filled the diplomatic vacuum by intensifying its relationship with Myanmar since the late 1980s was not lost on India. But it was Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao’s new Look East policy that made our diplomats really wonder whether ignoring a strategic neighbour like Myanmar was a good thing or not.



An overhaul of India’s policy towards greater engagement with Myanmar thus began, starting with the visit of India’s foreign secretary in March 1993. Since then, India took a decision not to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and engage its military regime. 1994-96 saw enhancement of economic cooperation between the two countries. But the decisive shift towards realism came with the formation of a NDA-led government since 1998.we have remarked on the significant shift in foreign policy towards 'realism' in the past



Jaswant Singh, the then foreign minister, was the architect of realism in seeing Myanmar as a land and sea bridge towards the Asian region. During this phase (which continues to date), there have been military to military dialogues and political rapprochement. The stakes have also included management of the security situation in the North-east. Initiatives like BIMSTEC also took off during this phase. For these reasons, both India and China have avoided isolating its neighbour although international pressure is mounting on Myanmar’s military regime to return to the path of democracy.

[Guest]

An Indo Korean perspective on the strategic asian issues relevant to the 2 countries.



[url="http://www.kida.re.kr/pdf/02kjda1/Il-young%20Kim%20and%20Lakhvinder%20Singh.PDF"]Asian Security and India-Korea strategic cooperation[/url]

[Guest]

The indian presence today in Ankara is minimal. Neither is there any trace of past historical connections.This is astonishing in one respect. India has been immensely influenced by the Turks over several centuries. Most of the Islamic invaders were of Turkish origin including the so called Moghals. That there should be little visibility of India or its traditions in Turkey is rather strange, especially when one remembers that the slave markets of Central and Western Asia were filled with Indian slaves captured in successive conquests. However,a slave loses his identity the fastest amongst all other categories of emigrants, cut off as he is involuntarily from the source of his traditions.



Regardless of history, the visit to Turkey by an Indian PM is of immense significance. Turkey has excellent relations with Israel , so India's new found overtures to the Jewish state do not raise any eyebrows here. Speaking of which i wonder why nobody in the Terrorist state finds Turkey's close relations with Israel objectionable.



[url="http://headlines.sify.com/2507news1.html?headline=PM's~visit~a~rare~treat~for~Indians~in~Turkey~"]PM's visit a rare treat for Indians in Turkey[/url]













By Smita Prakash in Ankara

[Guest]

[quote name='Kaushal' date='Sep 18 2003, 05:30 PM'] Regardless of history, the visit to Turkey by an Indian PM is of immense significance. Turkey has excellent relations with Israel , so India's new found overtures to the Jewish state do not raise any eyebrows here. Speaking of which i wonder why nobody in the Terrorist state finds Turkey's close relations with Israel objectionable.

[/quote]

Building relations with Turkey is expected if we are to ever send troops into those northern areas of Iraq where Turks have vested interests.

Speaking of which i wonder why nobody in the Terrorist state finds Turkey's close relations with Israel objectionable

Wasn't old enough to remember if the terrorist state objected to Egyptian Sadat signing peace accord at Camp David.

[acharya]

Speaking of which i wonder why nobody in the Terrorist state finds Turkey's close relations with Israel objectionable

This is part of the psy ops. In none of the discussion , debate, opeds and letters to editors anybody looked at the muslim world relation to Israel.



Turkey has a leading position in the Muslim world and also very influential in the military world. Its relationship with Israel has the blessing of US and so is Egypt.





So when TSP does not equate Turkey relationship with Israel with India this was best kept secret from the muslims of the sub-continent including in India.



The Muslims of India are the least anti-semitic muslims in the world and their worldview is being transformed just as any one inside Pakistan. The relationhsip of Muslims from the sub-continent to the arab world/ middle east is being choreographed by Pakistan and the image is being created by the India media which is controlled by the lefitst and the communists.



Now we see how the media controlled byt he leftists are in the same wavelengths as of the Pakistan ashrafs in creating the woldview similar to the muslim worldview and this is for the non-muslims also- just as in Mughal period.



The basic assumption is that the non-musims of the sib-continent have no real picture of the world especially the arab world and they can be moulded similar to the muslims/ashrafs. This was the basis of the foriegn policy of the first 50 years of India. This is complicated and chew on this before replying.



This is very subtle but the brainwashing is enormous and is going on for 50 years.

[Guest]

A must read :Hail Mogambo





Why do we just love to hate Ariel Sharon? He’s India’s natural ally

[url="http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=31087"]http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.ph...ontent_id=31087[/url]

[Guest]

From the "Hail Mogambo" link posted by Praneet.

It was, the historian Josephus was to later record, an evocation of the Hindu rite of passage, of seeing death in the flesh as just another milestone on the soul’s immortal journey. ‘‘Are we not,’’ Eleazer asked, ‘‘ashamed to have lower notions than the Indians? And by our own cowardice?’’

Do Jews believe in reincarnation like hindus ? Is their concept of soul/rebirth/etc similar to hindus ??

[Guest]

received via email:



[url="http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/opinion/nmrather21.html"]http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/opinion...nmrather21.html[/url]



DAILY BREEZE.COM, Monday, September 22, 2003



DAN RATHER: NUCLEAR-TIPPED PAKISTAN REMAINS A POWDER KEG



Is Pakistan (a) America's ally in the war on terrorism; (<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> America's enemy in the war on terrorism; © a powder keg that could explode at any moment; or (d) all of the above?



On the question of ally or enemy, the answer might well depend on what aspect of the United States-Pakistani relationship one chooses to look at, on specific events and time frames, and on just what part of the Pakistani power structure one focuses on. As to whether Pakistan is a powder keg, those who know intelligence, terrorism and the region can come up with any number of reasons to answer with an emphatic "yes."



For those who have followed only the surface narrative, the fast and fancy footwork necessitated by the immediate U.S. response to 9-11 obscured an important and inescapable fact: Afghanistan's Taliban were in no small part a creation of Pakistani intelligence and military operatives who wanted a way to keep Afghanistan under Pakistani influence. Their competitors in this were neighboring states: Iran, Russia, India and some of the Islamic former Soviet republics.



Pakistan's machinations in the early and mid-1990s have been reported to have had the tacit support of the United States, which was involved in Afghanistan for years after the 1979 Soviet invasion. When the Soviets left in 1989, the United States, too, largely abandoned Afghanistan. Then, in 1996, the Pakistani-backed Taliban were initially welcomed by the suffering Afghan population.



And somewhere along the line, under Presidents Bush I and Clinton, the United States failed to recognize the danger when Osama bin Laden first bought, then flat-out hijacked, the Taliban regime.



America, under Republican and Democratic administrations, slept. The gradual awakening to the threat, in the late 1990s, came too late. Bin Laden, with Mullah Mohammed Omar as his front man, had become the kingpin. And among his allies were some very highly placed Pakistani military and intelligence officers, along with segments of Pakistan's police force, scientists, teachers and clergy. And they still are. That's the problem.



It is most acute in the border "territories" of Pakistan's northwest, where tribal leaders are known to sympathize with al-Qaida. But the problem reaches throughout Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf must balance aiding the United States in its war on al-Qaida with avoiding completely alienating Taliban- and al-Qaida-sympathizing elements of the military and intelligence services that brought him to power.



And because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, it is a balancing act without a net. If Musharraf were to be overthrown, America's most bitter enemies in the war on terrorism could find themselves in possession of the bomb.



The United States has pledged billions of dollars to Pakistan to keep the government propped up. On the surface, its leaders appear friendly and allied with U.S. interests. But deeper down - in the military, intelligence and police ranks and in the mosques - danger lurks.



This complex, frightening situation is a factor behind the U.S. inability to find bin Laden or Mohammed Omar, and, because of Pakistani exports of nuclear and missile technology to North Korea, it is complicating U.S. foreign policy far beyond Central Asia.



So, the answer to the question at the start of this piece might very well be "d" - all of the above. There are, however, no easy answers for what to do about it. But pretending it doesn't exist is to ensure that it will get worse. And perhaps explode. Is America sleeping again?



Dan Rather anchors the "CBS Evening News" and is a syndicated columnist. His column appears every Sunday.



Publish Date:September 21, 2003

[Guest]

INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICIES IN SOUTH ASIA: A View Point

by Dr. Subhash Kapila



[url="http://www.saag.org/paper8/paper796.html"]http://www.saag.org/paper8/paper796.html[/url]

[muddur]

[url="http://sify.com/news/othernews/fullstory.php?id=13263586"]Time to review our foreign policy[/url]





By Dr Subhash Kapila

Friday, 26 September , 2003, 14:36



India's foreign policies in recent years have made commendable progress in terms of relations with major world powers. Relations with the United States are moving towards more strategic cooperation to secure India’s national security interests.





China, despite its traditional rhetoric, has seen the wisdom of greater economic cooperation with India and is departing from its hostility following the 1998 nuclear tests by India. European Union countries and Russia have modulated their policies towards India to exploit the vast defence purchase market and economic opportunities that India presents.



However, despite all of these India’s foreign policies in South Asia need a drastic review. If there is a growing recognition worldwide that India is a power to reckon with in South Asia and an emerging key player in global affairs, then India, at the first instance needs to reinforce and press home this reality in the South Asian neighbourhood.



India’s failure to create this impact in South Asia arises from a combination of the following factors:



* India’s lack of political will to use her power to ensure that South Asian nations recognise India’s predominance in the Indian sub-continent and the Indian Ocean.



* India’s soft handling of Pakistan’s 'spoiler state' strategies both as a hand-maiden of intrusive external powers and its attempts to provoke other South Asian nations to adopt belittling policies towards India.



* India’s inability to spell out firmly to the US and China that while they are free to follow their national interests in Pakistan, their future relationships with India would depend on their demonstrated sensitivity to India’s national interests in South Asia and that these cannot be made subservient to theirs.



India, therefore, has to review and modulate its policies towards South Asian countries by giving predominance to India’s strategic imperatives of creating a peaceful South Asian neighbourhood.



South Asia as a peaceful region can only emerge by strong and firm Indian policies that brook no playing around with India’s national interests.



With the above in mind, some view points are expressed below in relation to our foreign policy formulations towards the countries of the region.



Pakistan: Pakistan has emerged as a 'rogue nuclear state' however much the United States may like to paint it white. It has proliferated uranium enrichment technology to North Korea and Iran too (estimative analysis) and thereby is jeopardizing vital United States strategic interests in East Asia and the Middle East. This is taking place with the assistance of and bidding of China. India should not, therefore, depend on or expect United States and China to restrain Pakistan's disruptive policies in South Asia.



In relation to bringing Pakistan to heel in South Asia, India’s foreign policies concerning Pakistan must incorporate the following ingredients:

* Pakistan’s proxy war against India needs to be carried back into Pakistan. Self-determination movements in Sindh, Baluchistan, Pashtunistan and Northern Areas need to be exploited. India’s oft-quoted ‘pro-active policies’ must be put into effect here.

* Pakistan-based terrorist organisations must be struck the way the Israel strikes back at its opponents.

* India’s foreign policies and military policies lack the essential ingredient of 'Psychological Warfare' and allied operations.

* Pakistan Army’s stranglehold over the Pakistani nation-state and thwarting the emergence of democracy and pluralism in Pakistan needs to be vigorously exposed as part of the above operation.

* India must impose an arms-race on Pakistan the pace of which Pakistan can ill-afford economically and nor can its external patrons subsidise.

* In relation to Pakistan, India must make it clear to the other South Asian countries, that they have to choose between India and Pakistan in South Asia. “Either you are with us, or against us” and if their choice is “against us” they should be prepared to face the consequences of their choice.



Some may like to argue that the above are not realistic steps and that India does not have the capabilities to do so. This author would like to maintain that it is within India’s means to do so seeing India's preponderant power attributes. All that India needs is to give a ‘shaped-charge’ focus to these factors and re-order its priorities in its foreign policies.



As a starter, let India change its stand in relations to the conditions it stipulates for resumption of dialogue with Pakistan. India’s strong-man, Deputy PM Advani’s constant refrain is that unless Pakistan returns the persons in the 'list of 20' no dialogue can take place.



This is not an advisable stand as it reduces India to the level of trading far more important considerations in its approaches towards Pakistan than the extradition of 20 street-side hoodlums.



India’s conditions for resumption of dialogue with Pakistan need to rest on far more important considerations, namely:

* India will enter into dialogue with Pakistan only when a democratically elected government comes into power, through elections supervised by international observers.

* India will not enter into dialogue with Pakistan based on Pakistani imposed pre-conditions of Kashmir and the rest.

* India should maintain that Kashmir is not an issue historically nor is it now. Kashmir’s accession to India is non-negotiable as per the unanimous resolution of the Special Session of the Indian Parliament.

* India will enter into a dialogue with Pakistan only when it begins to respect the sanctity of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Jammu and Kashmir- a point endorsed by the United States through President Clinton’s statement.



Nepal: Nepal has been wracked by a Maoist insurgency for the past five or six years. India has remained a passive bystander witnessing the growing erosion of Nepal’s state power. Other than giving some military materiel for counter insurgency operations, no weighty measures have been taken.



India has not recognised the gravity of a Maoist take-over of Nepal as American analysts have done in depth. As per American analysts, the strategic implications of a Maoist take-over of Nepal are:

* Nepal becomes a total client state of China. A Maoist Nepal under Chinese tutelage would be a serious disruptive factor for US global strategies in the region.

* Maoist insurgents ruled Nepal would inextricably get dragged into Islamic terrorist organisations linkages, besides China’s policies towards the Islamic world.



India needs to realise the gravity of the strategic implications, specific to India, namely:

* A China-aligned Nepal, removes an important buffer state between India and China. India would have to militarily man the India-Nepal border in strength, which may eat up two to three infantry divisions.

* A China-aligned Nepal adds to the existing China-client states in South Asia i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh. It would be a very unholy trinity with not only the Western and Eastern flanks of India under China’s influence, but the Northern flank too added.

* For the majority peoples of India, the only Hindu kingdom in the world would slide down ignobly into a Chinese-Islamic coalition in South Asia.



India must, therefore, immediately, cast away its existing reluctance and inhibitions to act firmly, even militarily, to prevent a Maoist take-over of Nepal. Fortunately, in Nepal’s current Maoist-threatened environment, convergence of security interests exist between the United States and India. India must therefore jointly work with the United States to protect the sovereignty of the Nepalese state against a Maoist takeover.



It was so stated by US Assistant Secretary of State, Christiana Rocca, during her recent visit to New Delhi: “Working in tandem, our governments can help Nepal defeat the Maoists threat and re-establish democratic institutions responsive to the needs of the people".



India must, therefore, act forcefully and unapologetically in Nepal forthwith to secure her national interests. It would be a convincing demonstration of what this paper espouses: “India will intervene forcefully to secure her national interests in the region."



Bangladesh: For far too long India has been oblivious to the playing of the ‘Indian-Card’ (for or against) in Bangladesh’s domestic politics. For far too long has India tolerated the use of Bangladesh as a springboard for Pakistan’s strategic de-estabilisation of India’s North-Eastern states. India could borrow a leaf from Myanmar's dealing with the Rohinggya problem emanating from Saudi-based organisations in Bangladesh. Al Qaeda’s tentacles exist in Bangladesh.



Bangladesh, too, is a fit case where Indian foreign policy objectives could gain a convergence with United States national interests. The China-Bangladesh Defence Cooperation Agreement adds an additional dimension to the other threats.



India needs to draw red-lines in terms of India’s national interests which Bangladesh must not overstep with impunity. In tandem, India through its big business houses should integrate Bangladesh into more commercial linkages. Increased Indian economic investments in Bangladesh could generates thousands of job and remove the root cause of Bangladesh’s instability and move towards Islamic fundamentalism.



Sri Lanka: India’s national interests demand maintaining the unity and sovereignty of Sri Lanka. India’s domestic Tamil politics should not become the touchstone of India’s policies towards Sri Lanka. India needs to react forcefully to ensure that Sri Lanka remains a unified state with a set up that would meet the just aspirations of a majority of Tamils.



The above proposition entails once again the forging of mutual national interests convergence of India and the United States. Sri Lanka is an important component of United States' India Ocean strategy and it is felt that United States-India convergences exist already. Joint USA-India strategies and foreign policies towards Sri Lanka would be helpful in counter-acting Chinese and Pakistani overtures to wean away Sri Lanka from India’s influence.



India’s emergence as a regional power and a key global player depends largely on her image and standing in the South Asian neighbourhood. If India cannot effectively generate and ensure her key status in South Asia, how can the world be convinced that it can carve influence farther afield.



India’s nuclear weapons, space programmes, missiles development and her overwhelming superiority in military strength are of no use, if the South Asian neighbourhood takes India for granted and merrily tramples on India’s national interests and her image. India needs to introduce an element of ‘unilateralism’ in her state-craft in South Asia.



Fortunately for India, with the exception of Pakistan, joint convergences of national interests exist between United States and India. This could greatly facilitate India’s forceful assertion in South Asian affairs for greater regional good. Once this is achieved, a marginalised Pakistan in South Asia, may see the dawn of South Asia’s strategic realities.



(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email )

[Guest]

I was going to write up a small piece as a follow on to this, but better to thrash around some details first....



Frankly the security of our northern borders really lies in the security of the himalayas. With a beligerent China on our northern border refusing to accept the LAC, Sikkim while laying claim to Arunachal Pradesh, the scene is set for a future confrontation. Recurrent border incursions are already taking place in AP, with a report a little while back of even abducting Indian Jawans, torturing them before letting them go.

China has of course along with bangladesh and Pakistan fueled the terroism in the NE that has been simmering for decades. The Continual proxy war continues and is gaining momentum with a continual radical islamised Bangladesh. What are our options and future strategies?



I firmly believe that in order to blunt these proxies We need to take strategic control of the himalayas.



Some points about Bhutan:



1) Bhutan is strategically located overlying our vital 20 mile chicken neck connecting the large NE to the rest of the country. China has boundary disputes with Bhutan.

2) To protect this we have placed observation posts and man the Bhutan China border in the North. The Indian army has various 'training' institutions around the country under IMTRAT and runs a military hospital at Haa.

3) NE terrorist groups have taken refuge in the south of Bhutan and employ hit and run guerilla tactics on our troops before crossing the border.

4) Continual talking and pressure hasn't moved Wang Chuck to take action against them till recently when he again asserted that he would try one last time to 'talk' to the terrorists.

5) Till the early 1970's Bhutan was a protectorate of India when it gained independance..however we still manage its defence and foreign affairs.

6) Bhutan is WHOLLY dependant on India for almost all its exports and Imports, BRO builds and maintains all roads in Bhutan. Various hospitals, Schools, large Dams, Scholorships for university students, have all been built or paid for by India, including the first 2 five yr plans while we still contribute VERY genorously now.

7) Bhutan has significant potential for hydropower and still exports a great deal of electricity to India.



In my view the security of the North East and our Northern borders will rely to a great deal on the security of Bhutan. Bhutan has paid very little to our concerns and still harbours the terrorist camps who engage in killing Indians. Perhaps the time has come to explain to the king that we need an increased armed presence in Bhutan at all costs to remove these camps and deter Chinese agression towards Bhutan and India. Perhaps it is time to persuade Bhutan to become a protectorate once again....difficult? Consider...



1)Wang Chuck in the late 80's growing uncomfortable with the large Nepali Hindu Lhotshampas in the south forced a process of Ethnic Cleansing pushing out what some estimate to be in the order of >100 000. Yet another time even with so much control on Bhutan we weren't able to protect them. Hindus like in kashmir, were the teachers, shop owners and have been now relegated for the last decade to live in squalor in Nepali and Indian refugee camps. A young population Dis heartened with lack of progress on immigration back to bhutan are now taking to Maoism and the gun to get their point across.



2) Demography data on Bhutan is almost impossible to come by, but some estimates place it around 600 000. With 35% of the population Hindu and disenchanted with the king and policies to keep a Monocultural Bhutan along with a 100 000 Hindu Lhotshampas waiting to enter...its easy to understand why Bhutan refuses to act on the immigration issue.



3) Saying this Indian control economically is growing, Huge Indian hotels and companies have realised the value of tourism and safety of bhutan and are investing heavily in its growth.



So to finish off quick, There HAS to be a greater Indian military presence in Bhutan to act against the terrorists in the South, while detering Chinese agression in the North. A economically integrated protectorate Bhutan or a integrated Bhutanese State will widen the Chicken neck and provide greater access to the NE facilitating trade. A large part of the Himalayas will be once again under our Control. The terrorist camps must be shut down, Indians lives will be saved and perhaps we can ease the suffering of the hindu refugee lhotshampas. I personally would love to see Squadrons of Tejas based at Thimpu, patrolling the northern Borders while PGM plinking in the South.



A Step in the Indian Great Game.