by A. K. Verma
Threats are a matter of perception. Their assessments take into account capacities, not so much intentions, of a potential adversary. For an accurate reading, the short term and long term objectives of all leading players in the world have to be judged. Applying this criterion will reveal that India is living in an environment of threat from many corners of the earth. Is there a threat from the United States? To answer the question one must first identify the basic interests of the US and then examine whether similar interests of India are supplementary or contradictory to those of the US. An objective study will lead to the conclusion whether the relation ship between the two countries is essentially benevolent or malignant. The broad national interests of the US can be summed as the following:1. Geopolitical containment of Russia and China. 2. Nonproliferation.3. Countering and eradicating Islamism or radical Islam. 4. Maintaining access to and dominating control of energy sources In each of these areas the US is seeking to co-opt India as a junior partner. Since Indian interests do not necessarily dovetail into those of the US, a potential collision lurks in the background. US possibly views China as the single most potent long term threat to its continued domination of the world. It is, therefore, presently engaged in building coalitions to hamstring it from all directions. The US wants to develop India as an ally in this effort. Although India has its own fundamental differences with China, these do not go to the extent that it should play any role in the US strategy. An implicit threat in the relationship thus emerges. Non proliferation has been an article of faith with all recent US administrations that have been deeply unhappy with the Indian nuclear weapons programme. They want this programme to be capped, rolled back and eliminated. There have been some studies, commissioned by neo cons in the US, which have even suggested that it could be bombed out. A war was launched against Iraq, under the guise of dismantling its non existent WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Today, the dominant view in the neo con circles in Washington DC favours aerial strikes against Iran to knock its nuclear facilities to eradicate a possible nuclear programme. How can one assume that the Indian programme, if it is resumed, will forever remain unthreatened? The US war on Islamism, fought in the name of terrorism, has brought NATO, one suspects, as a permanent presence in Afghanistan. For the US it also serves the collateral purpose of offering a checkmate to China. This war seems to be leading to a gradual polarization of the world into Islamic and non Islamic and could indeed set in a clash of civilizations. The impact of such a development on South Asia will be devastating. Afghanistan is already deeply radicalized. If anti American sentiment can be treated as an index to measure propensity towards radicalism, Pakistan is also affected. A radical fringe can now be identified in India also. The US policies on issues relating to Islam have, thus, a potential for destabilization of communal harmony in South Asia. A resurgent Russia has put paid to US energy related ambitions in the Central Asian Republics but in the energy belt in West Asia, the latter remains dominant. The American enterprise in Iraq was propelled actually by a desire to strengthen this domination. There is an American effort now to block the growth of Iranian gas and oil markets. Indian oil energy needs to the extent of 70% are met from foreign sources. This requirement is expected to rise to 90% at not too distant a date. The US frowns at possibilities of expansion of India Iran linkages in this sector. In today’s world energy security is needed to reach human developmental goals and economic prosperity. But US eyes it as a strategic weapon. A conflictual environment is, thus, already created. While all that stated above does not amount to a totality of adverse relations, it is necessary not to ignore these factors while determining policy in India. One should not forget the abiding security dictum: there are only permanent interests, no permanent friends. Further, the ‘transformational diplomacy’ of the Neocons aims at converting nation states into American clones. In the field of external relations two other countries stand out, meriting continuous scrutiny and caution, China and Pakistan. Unlike the US, there have been violent ups and downs in India’s relationship with them. One, therefore, must attempt to discover what the core problems are. Looking at China first, its core concern is maintaining its integrity, territorial or otherwise, while it moves dynamically forward to build up its economic, political and military strengths. It seems to it that its strongest challenges will emanate from the US, seen to be encircling it from all directions with the help of its allies, and wanting to force a democratic wave within China, also targeting for loosening of its hold over Tibet and Xinjiang. In the game of diplomatic chess that has emerged China wants to ensure that no lending hand is given to the US by India. It seeks to achieve this objective by keeping India off balance. It has developed Pakistan as its Israel against India, extending nuclear and missile technology, all directed 100% against India. More than collaboration with the US, China fears India over the possible roles it can play around Tibet. As long as fires of Tibetan nationalism burn in Tibet and a diaspora of over 100,000 Tibetans, mostly well educated and politically aware, with Dalai Lama providing a focus, shelter in India, China will view India with grave suspicions. There is no way by which India can succeed in removing such mistrust from the Chinese mind. While the resulting state of unease may not lead to a war as in 1962, it certainly blocks progress on the border settlement and withdrawal of territorial claims such as over Arunachal Pradesh and. Aksaichin. As of today, one may not be off the mark to state that China India relationship will remain a hostage to China’s crisis with Tibet. The threat from Pakistan is altogether of a different kind. It is not an exaggeration to say that this threat commenced from the day Pakistan came into existence. It was inherent in the two nation theory, propounded anywhere in the world for the first time, to divide a multi-religious and multi-cultural nation, on a religious basis. An impossible task had been attempted, considering the size of India and its population, religion wise. The attempt succeeded in carving out a religious majority area, already existing, as a new nation, but the rump India still remained a many layered multi-religious and multi-cultural society. The two nation theory encouraged Pakistan to lay a claim over J&K State. Beginning with tribal incursions of late 1947, Pakistan has fought several wars to wrest the state out of Indian control. A proxy war continues even today. This continued quest has completely reoriented the psyche of Pakistani people and re-aligned all instruments of governance and policy- making in Pakistan against India. The text books in schools and colleges, the entire military doctrine and the entire focus of its nuclear weapon development program is centered against India. The ruling establishment in Pakistan has had to rely more and more on Islam and ‘Islampasand’ parties to keep the nation under its control. Islam is now so deeply embedded in the corridors of power that none in Pakistan can ignore the Islamic perspective. From the Pakistani view point there is no solution to the Kashmir question other than its amalgamation into Pakistan, a position which India can never accept, since any such scenario can ignite a chain reaction of separation in India. The problems between India and Pakistan will thus, remain insoluble, until Pakistan modifies its commitment to two nation theory. The prospects for such a change are absolutely minimal, because demolition of two nation theory means that Pakistan looses its raison-de-etre. The Pakistani designs against India have created a vast range of threats. Almost all movements within the country, agitating against the centre for political reasons have received support by way of finances, training, arms, guidance and shelter from Pakistani intelligence, ISI. Within Pakistan itself Islamist groups have been created or supported by ISI for sabotage, subversion and terrorism in India. ISI with its surrogate Wahabi groups is now targeting Indian Muslims to get them involved in questionable activities. Whilst under US pressure Pakistan has somewhat relented on its support to Islamic radicals operating against the US, it has abstained from a similar downsizing of its activities against India. What may one expect from the new configuration in Pakistan after the recent elections? There is no evidence yet that key changes are in the offing. The President retains all his powers as of old. He derives his strength from the military which, while it seems to have moved backstage, has not shed any substantive power. A new era will not dawn in Pakistan until the military is truly confined to the barracks. Till that happens, perceptions of threats from Pakistan must remain as before. On India’s borders exist other failed or failing states which create deep security concerns. Recent (10.04.08) elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA) in Nepal have pitch forked the Maoists in the leadership position for the first time for government formation. Their immediate objectives in the foreseeable future can be expected to be consolidation and management of CA deliberations to facilitate their smooth assimilation with polity and power in Nepal. Externally, their objectives will to redefine Nepal’s relations with neighbours and other powers. Inevitablly it will mean loss of India’s pre-eminent position in Nepal, with scrapping of mutual privileges. Covert support to Indian Maoists had not been on their agenda in the past and is not likely to be there in future while the process of consolidation is on. But transformation is never without some turbulence and hiccups. As they arise, they will need to be settled with foresight and patience. Unease with Bangladesh is not likely to end as their response on two major Indian security concerns remain negative, illegal infiltration into India and promotion of cross border terrorism. Bangladesh’s asymmetry with India and its extreme sense of inferiority vis-à-vis India contribute in a big way to these problems. The demographic aggression is a direct result of the pathetic poverty of Bangladesh. Infiltration has significantly altered the population patterns in the border areas of India and constitutes a long-term risk. The Bangladesh situation calls for a holistic approach from India, combining a compassionate approach to help in its developmental objectives with firmness where security gets compromised. In Srilanka, India is caught between the devil and the deep sea. The best solution for the crisis there would have been autonomy to Tamils in the North East provinces in a federal setup with a guaranteed and substantive devolution of power between the provinces and the centre. The moment seems to have been missed and Srilanka appears to be seeking a military option. India is left painted in a corner, unable to take any initiative on behalf of either side. After Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, public opinion in India is not very sympathetic towards the LTTE but if misfortune continuously chases Srilankan Tamils, there will be calls to come out with a response. The internal scene in India is also not free from anxiety on the threat front. Growth of Naxalism has been declared by the Prime minister to be the top internal security problem of the country. Roots of Naxalism, now known as Maoism, predate independence and now affect about 150 districts spread over 13 states. It has grown to this strength on account of cumulative wrongs, absence of social and eco reforms to ensure human dignity, justice and democratic rights to the rural and forest tribal populations of the country. The movement is seeking to establish a contiguous area from Karnataka to Nepal border to set up a compact revolutionary zone and is now well militarized. It will be a mistake to think that the movement can be countered by armed means alone. Ways have to be found to include the Maoists in the main stream and to fulfill the rising expectations of the rural and tribal people through better governance and a paradigm shift in administrative and development strategies, to ensure a better delivery. Subversion is another form of threat the Indian State is facing from several quarters . In J&K it takes the shape of a proxy war led by militant outfits operating from the safety of sanctuaries in Pakistan, at the behest of the Pakistani establishment. Despite the so called peace process between India and Pakistan, the thrust in this assault remains as sharp and purposeful as before. It is expanding and making inroads into the rest of the country. It wants to transmute itself into what has been dubbed as New Terrorism, mindless destruction of lives and property, merely for spectacular results. New Terrorism will employ WMDs if it can lay its hands on them. Its foreign promoters are eyeing the Indian Muslim community as a fertile field for recruitment of agents. The Pakistani masters try to distort faith by sowing concepts that such terrorism is ultimately a service to the wider community. This in turn promotes sectarian tensions. It is not clear whether the dangers inherent in this Pakistani strategy have been fully comprehended or conceptualized in India. The recent Deoband fatwa, outlawing terrorism, while laudable, does not go deep into the question, whether doctrinal injunctions create a mindset disfavouring growth of liberalism which will offset terrorism. The Muslim community in India needs to be encouraged to examine why it remains out of step with contemporaneous concepts and ideas that can ensure such virtues as gender equality, freedom of expression and keeping religion and state out of each other’s way. The turbulence in the North Eastern states of India is another form of subversion, orchestrated by foreign agencies, notably Pakistani. No doubt the militants in these states, principally Tripura, Assam, Manipur and Nagaland have long standing local grievances but there is an ongoing effort in most cases by the Central Government to deal with these through dialogue and counter insurgency. Cross border connections, guidance, financing and arming often put a spanner into such efforts. Maoism and foreign subversion pose strong challenges but the idea that is India remains strong. Nobody can say that India is not an admirably successful example of a multi ethnic, multi religious, multi lingual and pluralist entity in motion. However, interplay of politics and corruption and absence of good governance, a must for efficient security, remains a big blot on India’s record and add to the existentialist threats, facing India from various directions.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Copy-Cat Attack on Karzai
By B. Raman President John F. Kennedy of the US was assassinated on November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas, as he was being taken in a tightly-protected motorcade. In view of the strict access control, which might not have allowed access to his car, Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin, took up position in an unoccupied room on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Repository and fired at Kennedy. The incident highlighted the need for perimeter security, meaning the physical security of buildings in the vicinity of a VIP motorcade or a place of meeting of the VIP to prevent anyone taking shelter in a building and opening fire. 2.On October 6, 1981, the then President Anwar Sadat of Egypt was assassinated during the annual 6th October parade in Cairo marking the eighth anniversary of what the Egyptians view as their victory over Israel in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. As Sadat and his security staff were engrossed watching a spectacular fly-past in the sky, Khalid Islambouli of the Islamic Jihad, who was a member of the military formations participating in the parade, ran towards Sadat and shot him dead. Eleven others were also killed by other terriorists, who indiscriminately opened fire 3. The subsequent investigation brought out that a fatwa ordering the assassination had been issued by Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind cleric who is presently in jail in the US after having been convicted for his role in the New York World Centre explosion of February 1993. Over 300 members of the Islamic jihad were arrested and prosecuted by the Egyptian authorities. Prominent among them were Dy. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the present No.2 of Al Qaeda, who now operates from the tribal areas of Pakistan, Omar Abdel Rahman and Abd al-Hamid Kishk. Zawahiri and Omar were released by the Egyptian authorities in 1984. Both of them travelled, along with a brother of Islambouli, to Pakistan and offered their services to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the jihad against the Soviet troops. The ISI recruited them and sent them to Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden joined them subsequently. They were later to constitute the initial hard core of Al Qaeda. 4. Some of the perpetrators of the attack, which killed Sadat, were allegedly members of the Egyptian Army. The investigation brought out that they participated in the parade carrying weapons loaded with live ammunition. The security precaution of a pre-parade inspection of all weapons carried by those participating in a parade to ensure that no weapon was loaded with ammunition was introduced by security agencies of the world thereafter. 5. The modus operandi (MO) used in the attempt to kill President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a national day parade at Kabul on April 27, 2008, partly resembles the MO used by Oswald for killing Kennedy and partly the MO used by the Islamic Jihad of Egypt for killing Sadat. The perpetrators decided to strike during the parade held to mark the 16th anniversary of the collapse of the Government of then President Najibullah, which led to the occupation of Kabul by the Mujahideen. During such spectacular parades, the attention of the security staff tends to get diverted by the spectacle, thereby providing the would-be assassin with an opportunity to strike. However, since the access control in the parade ground was apparently tight, the perpetrators took up position in a room of a low-class hotel normally used by migrant labour, which was located about 500 metres from the saluting base, and opened fire with machine guns and grenade launchers. 6. They opened fire at the moment when Mr.Karzai had returned to the base after inspecting the formations, which were to participate in the parade.His personal security guards managed to have him removed safely out of the parade ground without his being hurt. There was an exchange of fire between other security personnel posted in the parade ground and the perpetrators. The security personnel ultimately managed to stop the firing from the building, raid it and make a number of arrests. 7. A self-styled spokesman of the Neo Taliban has claimed responsibility for the terrorist strike and said that a team of six persons participated in the operation of whom three died and the other three managed to escape. A tribal elder on the stage was directly hit and killed by the terrorist fire. A member of parliament, who was injured, succumbed to his injuries later. A 10-year-old child, which was reportedly hit by a bullet fired by the security personnel, also died. 8. While Afghan security sources have projected the incident as an attempt to kill Mr. Karzai, the Neo Taliban has projected it as an operation to demonstrate its capability even in Kabul, despite all the security precautions taken by the Government. The incident has revealed serious deficiencies in route security and perimeter security. The deficiencies in route security enabled six terrorists heavily armed enter the city and reach the hotel without being detected and intercepted anywhere. The deficiencies in perimeter security enabled the perpetrators to take up position in a room of the hotel without being detected and fire from there. 9. Apart from these physical security deficiencies, was there also a complicity by any members of the security forces? That is a question, which should be worrying the Afghan authorities. In Iraq, many successful terrorist strikes have been made possible by internal complicity. In Afghanistan, till now, there have been few instances of such complicity. 10. It has to be stressed that while the Neo Taliban's capability to carry out terrorist strikes in different parts of the country, including Kabul, has remained unimpaired, its capability for large-scale conventional actions involving stand-and-fight battles with large numbers of its men deployed has not been much in evidence this year as compared to 2006-07. The death of Mulla Dadullah, a very competent conventional commander, in a clash in May, 2007, seems to have impaired the Neo Taliban's capability for conventional fighting. It has not yet been able to produce a commander with a similar capability.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Indian Army Chief Fears Rise in Infiltration of Militants in Kashmir
The Indian army chief, General Deepak Kapoor has expressed the apprehensions that the infiltration of militants from across the border will rise in Kashmir.
The Indian army chief arrived here on a two-day visit. He was accompanied by his wife. After landing in Kashmir, he left for North Kashmir where he interacted with the soldiers deployed on frontiers with Pakistan.
He lauded the soldiers for their 'brave' efforts and credited them for the present improvement in the ground situation in Kashmir. He said that it was because of their efforts that the ground situation has witnessed an improvement.
He, however, expressed apprehensions that the infiltration of militants from the Pakistani side of Kashmir may increase during the coming days. "The snow in the peaks is melting and the militants may try to increase their attempts to cross into Kashmir to carry out violence related incidents there," he said.
He asked the soldiers on the frontiers with Pakistan to remain alert and vigilant to thwart any infiltration bid by militants. He asked the soldiers not to lower their guard.
The Indian army chief arrived here on a two-day visit. He was accompanied by his wife. After landing in Kashmir, he left for North Kashmir where he interacted with the soldiers deployed on frontiers with Pakistan.
He lauded the soldiers for their 'brave' efforts and credited them for the present improvement in the ground situation in Kashmir. He said that it was because of their efforts that the ground situation has witnessed an improvement.
He, however, expressed apprehensions that the infiltration of militants from the Pakistani side of Kashmir may increase during the coming days. "The snow in the peaks is melting and the militants may try to increase their attempts to cross into Kashmir to carry out violence related incidents there," he said.
He asked the soldiers on the frontiers with Pakistan to remain alert and vigilant to thwart any infiltration bid by militants. He asked the soldiers not to lower their guard.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Engaging India
Source : http://www.boloji.com/opinion/0539.htm
By Dr. Adityanjee
The need for a tectonic paradigm shift in the US foreign policy establishment in order to nurture the increasingly important Indo-US economic, scientific, cultural and strategic relationship can not be ignored anymore. The US needs to take unilateral, tangible, concrete and quantifiable confidence building measures (CBMs) in order to reverse the repetitive past sanctions and correct the past wrongs done to a fellow democracy. Meeting these benchmarks will remove the fundamental irritants in the bilateral relationship and enable India to perceive the US as an equal, dependable and reliable strategic partner. US rhetoric must match the action on the ground. Acceptance of genuine reciprocity in bilateral relations will serve as the guiding principle for future.
There has been increasing warmth in Indo-US relations. America’s strategic opportunity with India has been talked about in recent months. Karl Inderfurth and Bruce Reidel advocated open US support for India’s membership in the UN Security Council and India’s inclusion in G8 in the “National Interest” magazine. High hopes and expectations for future were expressed by the charismatic and hardworking diplomat R. Nicholas Burns in Foreign Affairs magazine. In the same issue of Foreign Affairs republican presidential hopeful John McCain, while advocating for cementing US’s growing partnership with India, writes :”We need to start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India”. Similarly warm sentiments about India were expressed by the democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who writes” In Asia, India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world’s most populous democracy. As co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, I recognize the tremendous opportunity presented by India’s rise and the need to give the country an augmented voice in regional and international institutions, such as the UN. We must find additional ways for Australia, India, Japan, and the United States to cooperate on issues of mutual concern, including combating terrorism, cooperating on global climate control, protecting global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development”. Richard Holbrooke has advocated India’s membership of UN P5 while also lamenting the absence of India and China in the G8 meetings. These recent sentiments were not possible if the 14-rounds Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott dialogue had not built an earlier foundation of mutual understanding. Policy Continuity plus (PC Plus) as proposed by Inderfurth & Reidel should be the cornerstone for the future US administrations.
Clearly, the mutual warmth in the bilateral Indo-US relations could not be better than any other time in the recent history. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had characterized the US and India as natural allies. Current Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh has described the US President George W. Bush as the friendliest US President to India. Credit for this bonhomie also goes to the scholarly Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the strategic Guru of the current US president, who was chiefly instrumental in changing the rigid, inflexible, orthodox and historically anti-India mindset of the US Department of State and in steering the White House’s thinking towards India in a positive direction. Undersecretary R. Nicholas Burns himself has worked very hard and has made numerous trips to India. He has always been optimistic about the future of Indo-US relationship. He is indeed right when he talks about the lost bilateral opportunities in the past 60 years and a bright potential for the future along with the immense need to do it right this time. Henry Kissinger admitted that he and others in the US never envisaged that the two countries will be so close. Despite this upbeat mood of the top executive branch of the US Administration, Congressional minions and the Foggy Bottom mandarins have laid down an elaborate “prescriptive plan making extremely narcissistic demands” on the Government of India to harmonize her national laws, foreign policies and strategic interests according to the foreign policy objectives and strategic vision of the US as enshrined in the Henry L. Hyde Act and the 123 agreement.
In this context, one recalls the famous words of a former US President John F. Kennedy who once said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”! The same aphorism aptly applies for the US policy czars, mandarins, and visionaries current and future included. Rather than US policy planners asking what India can do for the US global strategic interests, the more appropriate question is what the future US administrations would do for India. This would be an important out-of-the-box next step by the US in the avante garde strategic partnership in order to engage India “constructively”. A state department document somewhat patronizingly asserted that the US will assist India achieve a global power status in the 21st century. Nobody makes anybody a global power. Nations achieve that status on their own strength. Of course, India shall do so on her own strength in the near future. From the Indian perspective, the US rhetoric does not match its action in harmonizing US’s actual behavior with the ostensibly stated intent or the verbiage. The fundamental irritant in the bilateral relationship between the two fellow democracies is the repetitive use of wide-ranging sanctions against India by successive US administrations. That regime of still-existing sanctions will have to be completely dismantled by the US unilaterally without seeking anything in return from India. Therefore, a major tectonic paradigm shift is required in the US foreign policy establishment.
The steps for the mating dance Undersecretary Nicholas Burns asked India to learn are strategically inappropriate and potentially self-injurious for India. India might break her femur while dancing to Uncle’s Sam’s seductive music; the tunes, the lyrics and the whole ensemble, of course! Indian civil society perceives duplicity & doublespeak if not outright deception in some of these friendly US overtures. A camouflaged or sugarcoated policy of “Congagement” of India under the garb of engagement certainly will not work. Future US administrations should ask themselves important and pertinent questions like how the US government can change its own behavior and policy framework to accommodate a rising India’s national and strategic interests and democratic aspirations in a global framework that has essentially been decided by the successive US administrations following the 2nd World war. International strategic space can not be occupied indefinitely by the victors of the 2nd World war. US policy wonks should seriously calculate the total long-term costs to the US of “losing India” once again by failing to genuinely engage India in the 3rd millennium.
So far, US attempts to engage India have been ambivalent and half-hearted. US diplomats fail to understand India’s genuine national interests, aspirations and foreign policy and strategic concerns globally. India is not just another banana republic. India does have a proud history of 5000 years’ old civilization whereas in historic terms US is only a recent geo-political entity. True, US is the global “hyper-power” at this juncture! India is rising fast as a serious economic, industrial, intellectual, cultural, civilisational and strategic power-house in the international arena despite numerous mis-steps in the past 60 years. Train India Express cannot be stopped any longer despite laying out railroad blocks; the only real alternatives are to board the train or be left behind on the platform! In the current scenario, the US needs India more than India needs US. Of course, India does need the US in this era of globalization and free trade. India may have been coy or confused in the past about articulating her strategic interests. That situation is no longer likely to be true for a newly resurgent India. The strategic implications of this changing global balance of power dynamics cannot be minimized any longer by the future US Administrations as the world transforms from its current uni-polar moments to a newly emerging multi-polar reality.
It is important to recapitulate the historical antecedents of Indo-US relationship since 1947. The US generally tends to disregard history for short-term policy gains. Without understanding the historical context, proper corrective actions are impossible.
Missed Opportunities & Recent Snafus:
After India’s independence, the US as the imperialistic inheritor of the world order following the end of World War II tended to hurt India’s strategic interests by cultivating Pakistan as a client state. Part of the blame does lie at the doorstep of India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. Characterization of India’s non-alignment stance as “immoral” by John Foster Dulles epitomized the US mindset as essentially blocked with tunnel vision.
Besides the famous tilt to Pakistan, abusive language used by Nixon- Kissinger duo against a former female Indian Prime Minister and also “stereotyping” of Indians in private but taped conversations in the oval office betrays the contempt successive post WW II US administrations held India in. In the mid-eighties a young Indian Prime Minister visited the US. Bilateral agreements on scientific and technological collaboration were signed. The US under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan agreed to sell two Cray supercomputers to India for predicting Monsoon and other weather patterns. Only one Cray supercomputer was delivered; the US non-proliferation ayatollahs blocked the sale of second one forcing India to develop her own parallel processing PARAM supercomputer system.
The US Department of State has been particularly insensitive in the past about the need to engage India in a diplomatic, courteous and honorable manner. For example, Robin Raphael, the former Assistant Secretary of State in the first Clinton administration went on to deny the authenticity of the Instrument of Accession that was signed between the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir and the Government of India in 1947. She also made the notoriously disparaging statement that it is very easy to start a storm in a teacup in New Delhi! The same Robin Raphael is now on the payroll of the Pakistani Government as a paid lobbyist of Pakistan. One wonders how long she had been on the payroll of Government of Pakistan! Immediate and ungrudging US acceptance of the India’s position on the state of Jammu & Kashmir is the need of the hour. Most recent example of such lost opportunities caused by the US arrogance and chutzpah was the undiplomatic behavior of General Colin Powell who as the US Secretary of State visited New Delhi in 2004 and announced the “NSSP: Next Steps in Strategic Partnership” initiative. He was in Islamabad 24 hours later declaring Pakistan as the “Major Non-Nato Ally” (MNNA). Indian sensitivities were not considered. No prior consultations were done. This caused dismay and hurt in the Indian establishment. General Powell gave a lame excuse that he “forgot” to discuss MNNA with his Indian interlocutors just 24 hours before. Elementary my dear Watson, perhaps, this was a severe case of amnesia induced while one General was trying to be the knight in shining armor to rescue his General in distress!
Failure of the US to acknowledge till 9/11 that India is a victim of cross-border Jihadist terrorism from Pakistan remains a sore point for India. In the 1980s, the US covertly supported Khalistani terrorists under the garb of “Human rights” who had committed heinous crimes against innocent Indian civilians. Labeling terrorists as freedom fighters, the US lost any credibility with the civil society in India despite a strong fascination for the US by the burgeoning Indian middle class. The Wlliam Jefferson Clinton administration chose to remain silent in March 1999 when the two Bamiaan Buddha statues were destroyed by the Taliban. The US was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline with the Taliban at that time! When Pakistani Jihadist terrorists hijacked an Indian civilian airliner to Kandahaar, Afghanistan in December 1999 the US did not sanction or even admonish Pakistan or Taliban. Perpetual US reluctance to genuinely condemn the terrorist crimes against India over last several decades was the greatest diplomatic folly. Though some former US officials have acknowledged their mistakes now, there is no corrective policy change as yet.
Successive US administrations (Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43) have scuttled any serious attempts to reform and expand the Security Council of the UN that would have enabled India to be one of the permanent members of the SC. For the US, the sole objective is to maintain its hold on the world body and not allow anyone else to have a say in world affairs. Except for making some vague noises on the principles of reform, the US has not come out categorically in India’s favor as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Inderfurth and Reidel advocate that future US administration should openly support India for the Security Council membership. US could have graciously supported India’s candidate Shashi Tharoor for the UN Secretary General’s position. Reportedly, the US secretly vetoed his candidature enabling Ban Ki Moon to win. Shashi Tharoor would have certainly made a far better UN SG than Ban Ki Moon. Ban ki Moon has been wasting the UN budget on a massive increase in personnel and on staff salaries instead of developmental programs. He has been accused of packing the UN posts with his South Korean cronies who keep on having side-talks in Korean instead of using official UN languages! US lost a golden chance to reform the UN along with a democratic partner, India and Shashi Tharoor as the SG. But alas! Chutzpah, thy name is US Department of State! The Bush administration again in October 2007 voted for the Canadian candidate instead of India's Finance Minister, P Chidambaram to head the International Monetary Fund's Monetary and Financial Committee -- the IMF's influential policymaking body. It was the second time in less than two years that the US had let down India. The US vote for Canada instead of India attracted concerns about cronyism.
Morality, Pragmatism and the Us Foreign Policy:
Lack of harmonization and congruence between the US foreign policy objectives and India’s stated positions is owing to Machiavellian tendencies. Such practices have blinded the US diplomats to India’s moralistic stance whether in the arena of the non-alignment movement, in the interests of the third world countries, in the GATT, in the WTO, in the NPT and its various avatars. Americans are fond of rationalizing their blind and irrational tactical and strategic support for tin-pot dictators and coup plotters world-wide by stating; “Well, he may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch”! This crass characterization of US self-interests alone as supreme in selectively supporting military dictators worldwide while chiding India for not being democratic enough represents the “Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome” the whole US foreign policy establishment suffers from. The height of brazenness was reflected when a CIA inspired New York Times correspondent Barbara Crossett in the 1990s tried to sell her characterization of India as a “Rogue Democracy”. Being a democracy is not good enough! You have to be the “Right Democracy” on the right side of the US otherwise you would be labeled as a “Rogue Democracy”! A nation that cannot conduct its own presidential elections right and selects the presidents by judicial order has forfeited any rights to comment on India’s vibrant democracy!
Nuclear Spring:
It is unlikely that the US-India civil energy accord will be fully implemented in near future despite last minute efforts to revive it. The US Congress unfairly moved the goalposts. Undersecretary Burns has already submitted his resignation. Its slow death despite attempts to resuscitate is currently causing consternation in the US. The US establishment, including Ambassador David Mullford, is unable to fathom Indian concerns about this deal that is more about US non-proliferation objectives rather than tending to India’s growing energy needs. Something that was initially negotiated in good faith as civil energy accord can not be exploited to satisfy the unrealistic objectives of the US non-proliferation lobby. The alphabet soup (NPT, CTBT, FMCT, MTCR, PSI) that tends to drown India strategically has been cooked by the chef US in order to maintain the dated nature of the P5 club membership. The US tied itself into the knots by creating NSG as an instrument to contain India after the 1974 “Smiling Buddha” nuclear test. It is for the US to extricate itself by untying these knots. The world cannot be frozen into strategic status quo. When India under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee conducted Pokhran II nuclear tests, the Clinton administration went on record to ask a fellow democracy India to CAP, ROLLBACK and eventually ELIMINATE her strategic nuclear assets. Let it be categorically stated that India shall not cap, rollback and eliminate her strategic nuclear program come what may! India values her strategic autonomy and independence. The only way out for the US and other members of the “nuclear club” is to realize and accept India’s exceptionalism; make amends to the NPT and welcome India as an advanced nuclear weapon state with full privileges and ‘rights” of the “club membership”. Any second class citizenship of the “club” would not be acceptable to future Governments of India. Unconditional and immediate acceptance of India as a de facto and de jure nuclear weapon state as defined by a revision of the NPT is called for. Short of that tectonic change in the US attitude, there is not going to be a nuclear spring. Any future Government of India that signs a bilateral or multilateral nuclear agreement restraining India’ strategic nuclear program will not survive the next elections. The only nuclear non-proliferation regime India will consider has to be time-bound totally non-discriminatory universal nuclear disarmament in accordance with the New Delhi Declaration of 1988 signed by the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and ex-Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev. Since both the Bush administration and the Man Mohan Singh government are lame ducks now, future elected officials will deal with the issue of nuclear rapprochement! It is an issue of very grave concern that Richard Boucher wants approval of the nuclear deal by stealth and by backdoor when he claims that a caretaker government of India or a minority government’s signing the nuclear accord would be “kosher” from the US perspective. This raises doubts about the indecent haste in trying to formalize and implement a bilateral accord by both governments on their last legs.
Securing Indian Subcontinent:
India is surrounded by countries that are either failed states or are on the path to become failed states. The inability of these failed states to sort out their internal problems generates neighbors’ envy and of course tendency to adopt a “victim” role and internationalize any minor problems. Overzealous US support for the now defunct Gujral Doctrine further emboldened some of these failed states to project their internal problems on to India. Some of these failed states have tried to play global power politics by inviting superpowers into the region to contain India’s economic, industrial and military rise. These failed states in the Indian subcontinent have historically played their China card or US card against India on numerous occasions. Rationalization of state sponsored cross-border terrorism directed against India by US diplomats in the pre 9/11 era is still fresh in the minds of Indian policy planners. Though India does not wish to become an authentic regional hegemon, she may have to bring order in this very chaotic region in her backyard owing to deep cultural, historical and civilizational ties along with the tyranny of geographic proximity. India cannot wish away these troubled neighbors even if she wished to do so. However, India cannot afford to have instability in her vicinity. From Indian perspective, these failed states need to undertake structural reforms, democratize genuinely and become prosperous so that terrorism can be eliminated from the region. India can and will help them.
A rising India would like both the US and China to stop trying to spread their influence country after country in the immediate vicinity of India. India would not condone alien superpowers if they invade India’s sacred strategic space. Near abroad region around India should remain free of the superpower rivalry between the US and China. Just like the US did not tolerate nuclear missiles in its backyard triggering the Cuban missiles crisis in the 1960s or the Russia currently having difficulty tolerating Poland and Czech territories as part of US’ Strategic Missile defense shield, India certainly would not wish to see a nuclear armed and unstable Bangladesh or a nuclear armed and unstable Myanmar joining the company of a nuclear armed and unstable Pakistan. India as an emergent global power would like to manage her own backyard and shall brook no interference from any quarters however benign. If the interference does not stop, a resurgent India may have to take appropriate pre-emptive, remedial steps so that Indian strategic interests in her neighborhood are not jeopardized. India certainly would not look for any one’s permission to do so and no one should be surprised if that happens in near future.
Historic Tilt towards Pakistan:
The soft underbelly of the US giant is the failed state of Pakistan and Jihadi Terrorism emanating from Pakistan. As we speak, the unraveling of recent events in Pakistan, murder of Benazir Bhutto and the continued US support to the failing dictatorship of General Musharraf reflects the intellectual bankruptcy of the Bush-43 foreign policy team. Robust support for serial military dictatorships in Pakistan has been the normative behavior of successive US administrations. The infamous tilt shown historically by US administrations towards Pakistan and directed against India’s strategic interests did affect the nature, quality and dimensions of Indo-US relations in the past 60 years. Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark in their recent book entitled “Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons” accuse the US Department of State of suffering from a severe case of “Clientitis” vis a vis Pakistan. Since 2001, the US has provided the terrorist state of Pakistan military aid worth 11 billion dollars without any results. You do not fight terrorism by providing Pakistani military machine with nuclear capable F16 fighter jets. The US policy on Pakistan can be summarized in one sentence:”Support the latest military dictator”! Nation states do make historical mistakes and reap the harvest of those mistakes. The now defunct Soviet Union did commit strategic mistakes and certainly paid for it. India also has committed strategic mistakes and has paid dearly for them. The same holds true for the only global “hyper-power”. George Santayana once said: “Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the history”. If the US has to come out of the Terroristic & Talibani quagmire of Jihadistan (the geographically contiguous region of Afghanistan, Waziristan & Pakistan), there is no other alternative for the US but to do a course correction after a deep introspection of its past thinking, theories, behaviors and actions. Accepting the past mistakes will certainly help the US in preventing it from emulating the Soviet fate in this region. Myanmar versus Pakistan, US concern for democracy in the Indian subcontinent is highly selective.
In the post-Cold war era de-hyphenating the relationship with India and Pakistan alone is not enough for the US. There has to be an exercise of deep national introspection on failed foreign policies of successive US administrations in relation to Pakistan. There has to be a public contrition by the US for the past sins along with promises of future actual, measurable good behaviors. There is a dire strategic need for the US Administration to bring out an un-sanitized, un-redacted and complete white paper on its entire gamut of relationships with Pakistan in totality since the inception of that state in 1947. A formal declaration by the US characterizing Pakistan and its chief financial backer, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as rogue states sponsoring terrorism will definitely help. The past sins of previous US Administrations can certainly “forgiven” by a magnanimous and an indulgent India but they cannot be “forgotten” altogether. Future “good as well as bad” behaviors of the US administrations are likely to be scrutinized very closely by the future Governments of India.
India, Us and China:
Since 1970 the US cultivated communist China as an ally to the horror of the entire democratic world. During the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, Nixon & Kissinger encouraged China to attack India. Later on, while India was targeted as an enemy nation by the 301 and the super 301 trade protection laws, China was granted most favored nation (MFN) status annually by the US Congress. China’s transfer of nuclear technology and bomb design to Pakistan in 1988-1989 did not evoke any US response from the George H. W. Bush administration. The horrors of the Tiananmen Square massacre did not cause outrage in the Bush-41 administration. The US missed an opportunity to leverage the international community in order to solve the problem of Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1989. Chinese transfer of Ballistic Missiles in the early 1990s to Pakistan did not elicit any sanctions from the William Jefferson Clinton Administration. Though the US honeymoon with China is now over, the US continues to allow communist China to buy nuclear reactors but sanctions a democratic India even now. Even now with China’s brutal repression in Tibet, the US has been waffling on any strong measures to censor China’s brazen conduct.
India does not wish to be used as a US proxy to contain China in the Asian theatre as India believes genuinely in the inevitability of a multi-polar world. A newly resurgent India will deal with China on her own steam. India does not need to ally with US against China as it certainly would not gang up against US in company of Russia and China in accordance with the Primakov Doctrine. Yes, Chinese behavior does cause for concern in India. China needs to understand that India will engage each and every nation and geo-political entity on the basis of her own strength, sovereignty and national aspirations without being bullied by anyone. India is a democracy and would definitely find it easier to work with other democracies in the international arena. A resurgent India will not feel apologetic about her bilateral and multilateral relationships with other democratic nations in Asia and elsewhere. If China needs to work “harmoniously” with India, it needs to speedily transform itself into a mature, pluralistic democracy as Indians know it. China should not whine about India’s relationship with the US or with any other democracy as it will not help China diplomatically. Similarly, the US should not expect India to become a subservient junior partner helping it contain or balance China in the Asian theatre. India is too proud a nation to do that and will never do that. Nor should US contemplate ganging with China and others to hamstring India’s strategic options whether in the SCP5, NPT or NSG. In the ultimate analysis, a resurgent India will always be pro-India, and not pro-US, pro-Soviet, pro-China or pro-Russia or pro-Whatever!
Natural Allies:
While the world’s oldest democracy and the largest democracy are natural allies, friends and natural allies certainly do not spy on each other. Such episodes are serious impediments to improvement in bilateral relationship. Perhaps, the future US administrations will have to relearn that honesty counts in friendly relationships between two nation states as it counts among individuals. Espionage activities directed towards India need to stop immediately. It is not something new; each decade has witnessed US attempts to infiltrate India’s politicians and bureaucrats. In the 1970s, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared that there was a CIA agent in her cabinet. Later on, Seymour Hirsch claimed that the CIA agent in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet was the former Prime Minister Morarji Desai. Former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh wrote in his book about a US Mole in the Prime Minister’s Office in the mid 1990s during Prime Minister Narsimha Rao’s time. Two recent episodes of espionage were described in depth by Major General VK Singh in his book entitled “India’s External Intelligence”. These episodes cast the US in a very poor light as a friendly nation to India. The first episode happened in May 2004 when CIA mole in the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) Rabinder Singh was spirited out of India to the US. More recently in 2006, Rosanne Minchew, a young female US embassy official was involved in breaching Indian security in the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). She obtained sensitive data on USB drives copied from the computers of the NSCS from R&AW staff. She made several personal trips together with Commander Mukesh Saini who introduced her to his subordinate SS Paul, a computer analyst. This was a classic case of “honey trap” in which sex and money were used to spy on India. There were also CIA inspired plans to encourage secessionist activity in the North-east part of India specifically a blue-print for creation of “United States of Assam”. If the US is serious about cultivating strategic relationship with India, espionage activities targeted against a fellow democracy will have to cease completely.
The Long Journey Ahead, Indeed:
Since thinking as well as the behavior of recent US administrations is still conditioned by the past prism of cold war, it will be appropriate for the future US administrations to change the basic mindset while dealing with India. In the 1971 during the Bangladesh liberation war, the Nixon administration had sent the US Navy’s 7th fleet to the Bay of Bengal to covertly threaten India with “consequences”. A formal apology by the US for sending its 7th fleet in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 is still awaited. More recently, the US troika of Henry Kissinger, Henry M. Paulson and David C. Mullford attempted to coerce India and lobby the leaders of opposition to kow-tow to the US strategic interests and approve the 123 agreement in the Indian parliament. There have been overt and covert threats from these distinguished worthies about linking permanent membership of the UN Security Council with smooth passage of the 123 agreement in the Indian parliament.
Credibility of the US as strategic partner of India shall depend upon changes in actual US behavior. The US rhetoric must match its action on the ground. Continuation of “prescriptive” approach and frequent demands on India to change her foreign policy in accordance with US strategic objectives by insignificant members of the US Congress or minor bureaucrats will not take future US administrations anywhere. Opportunistic shifting of goal-posts in civil nuclear energy deal and reneging on previously negotiated bilateral and multilateral agreements in the past do not inspire confidence. India’s sensitivities as the largest functioning democracy have to be understood clearly. In a democracy, all important decisions are taken by the people & the parliament of that country and not by demarches of foreign governments! India will continue to have multi-dimensional relationships with other nations including Russia and Iran despite having good relations with the US.
As the Indian diplomats and politicians of this era, fearful of the breach of diplomatic protocol, may not speak so bluntly, may not articulate a pro-India view so cogently, may not enunciate India’s hopes and aspirations so clearly; someone, albeit a private individual, has the responsibility to call a spade a spade and convey the true feelings and sense of a resurgent India to the future US administrations that the diplomatese jargon can not express. Future efforts at containment and congagement of India and her strategic nuclear program will not work. Nor would work any attempts to lay a “honey trap” to contain India’s strategic options. The relationship has to be of genuine reciprocity between two equals or between two brothers rather being master-slave relationship. For lack of a better expression, it can be called Adityan Doctrine! The US policy and strategy establishment will have to seek a successful cure for the “Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome” it has historically suffered from. The US will have to learn to be humble and honest while dealing with a rising India. And India will have to be more assertive and articulate in expressing and delineating her strategic interests. It is true that India and the US will have to indulge in a complex and ritualized mating dance with very intricate footwork and steps for future engagement. Mere need for such a mating dance should not be usurped to foist the suicidal role of “Bhasmasura” upon India while the US seductively portrays herself as a coy “Mohini” on the dance floor in the disapproving presence of the international ayatollahs of non-proliferation theology!
Guiding Principles and Benchmarks for Future:
We certainly have the glorious opportunity to synergize the strengths and creative energies of two largest democracies. There are people to people relationships now. Pew research survey of world-wide attitudes suggests a lot of goodwill in India about the US. For the strategic relationship to move forward, the US will have to make unilateral concessions by making a clean break from its past. Since both the Bush administration and the Man Mohan Singh government are lame ducks now, new beginnings can be made by future US administrations in dealing with a resurgent India. Let the US policy establishment free itself from the shackles of the ayatollahs of non-proliferation theology. A new dawn in Indo-US relations can start with the US giving its immediate, unconditional, unqualified, un-hesitating, unequivocal and open support for India’s bid for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council without beating around any bush. Another significant unilateral CBM involves facilitating India’s reprocessing rights on the spent nuclear fuel for the Tarapore Atomic Power Station (TAPS) to help with India’s growing energy needs. A formal US apology for unilaterally abrogating bilateral agreements on supply of nuclear fuel for the TAPS and payment of monetary damages for the losses suffered thereby consequent upon US failure to supply the nuclear fuel is necessary in mitigating the past hurts. India would not like her bilateral relationship with US being constrained by her relationship with a resurgent Russia or with Iran with whom India has civilization links for more than five thousand years. There is no zero sum game in these multi-dimensional relationships India has with various countries and the US policy makers should refrain from putting conditionalities on India.
Following 5 Mantras and 10 Commandments have been enunciated for the future US Administrations so that they do not blunder yet again in making wrong and self-defeating strategic choices vis-à-vis India. Though not proposed as benchmarks, these will become de facto benchmarks to judge future US behavior towards India. If the US policy planners and government officials adopt and internalize the proposed 5 Mantras and 10 Commandments, the relationship between the two great democratic nations would be smooth. The future Indo-US relationship will be predicated on the following bench-marks:
Five Mantras:
India is a re-emerging superpower that cannot be stopped!
India is a pluralistic democracy.
India is an ancient civilization that is proud of her glorious past, aware of her current limitations and fully cognizant of her future potential, roles and responsibilities.
India cannot be contained as she shall not bow or bend.
India shall prevail over all the adversities with resilience.
Ten Commandments:
Thou shall not interfere in the internal affairs of India.
Thou shall not block India’s entry into the P5.
Thou shall not spy on India.
Thou shall not expect India to change her independent foreign policy.
Thou shall not place trade restrictions and visa obstructions in the path of Indian scientists and professionals who provide important services.
Thou shall not send Evangelist, Baptist, Christian missionaries to India under garb of tourists and CIA agents under the garb of journalists.
Thou shall express sincere apologies for “breach of a bilateral contract between two sovereign nations” on Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) and make amends for the same.
Thou shall not prop up serial military dictatorships of Pakistan on one pretext or another.
Thou shall not play the China card against India.
Thou shall not act as the policeman of the Indian subcontinent.
Dr. Adityanjee is the President of Council for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi
By Dr. Adityanjee
The need for a tectonic paradigm shift in the US foreign policy establishment in order to nurture the increasingly important Indo-US economic, scientific, cultural and strategic relationship can not be ignored anymore. The US needs to take unilateral, tangible, concrete and quantifiable confidence building measures (CBMs) in order to reverse the repetitive past sanctions and correct the past wrongs done to a fellow democracy. Meeting these benchmarks will remove the fundamental irritants in the bilateral relationship and enable India to perceive the US as an equal, dependable and reliable strategic partner. US rhetoric must match the action on the ground. Acceptance of genuine reciprocity in bilateral relations will serve as the guiding principle for future.
There has been increasing warmth in Indo-US relations. America’s strategic opportunity with India has been talked about in recent months. Karl Inderfurth and Bruce Reidel advocated open US support for India’s membership in the UN Security Council and India’s inclusion in G8 in the “National Interest” magazine. High hopes and expectations for future were expressed by the charismatic and hardworking diplomat R. Nicholas Burns in Foreign Affairs magazine. In the same issue of Foreign Affairs republican presidential hopeful John McCain, while advocating for cementing US’s growing partnership with India, writes :”We need to start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India”. Similarly warm sentiments about India were expressed by the democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who writes” In Asia, India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world’s most populous democracy. As co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, I recognize the tremendous opportunity presented by India’s rise and the need to give the country an augmented voice in regional and international institutions, such as the UN. We must find additional ways for Australia, India, Japan, and the United States to cooperate on issues of mutual concern, including combating terrorism, cooperating on global climate control, protecting global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development”. Richard Holbrooke has advocated India’s membership of UN P5 while also lamenting the absence of India and China in the G8 meetings. These recent sentiments were not possible if the 14-rounds Jaswant Singh-Strobe Talbott dialogue had not built an earlier foundation of mutual understanding. Policy Continuity plus (PC Plus) as proposed by Inderfurth & Reidel should be the cornerstone for the future US administrations.
Clearly, the mutual warmth in the bilateral Indo-US relations could not be better than any other time in the recent history. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had characterized the US and India as natural allies. Current Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh has described the US President George W. Bush as the friendliest US President to India. Credit for this bonhomie also goes to the scholarly Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the strategic Guru of the current US president, who was chiefly instrumental in changing the rigid, inflexible, orthodox and historically anti-India mindset of the US Department of State and in steering the White House’s thinking towards India in a positive direction. Undersecretary R. Nicholas Burns himself has worked very hard and has made numerous trips to India. He has always been optimistic about the future of Indo-US relationship. He is indeed right when he talks about the lost bilateral opportunities in the past 60 years and a bright potential for the future along with the immense need to do it right this time. Henry Kissinger admitted that he and others in the US never envisaged that the two countries will be so close. Despite this upbeat mood of the top executive branch of the US Administration, Congressional minions and the Foggy Bottom mandarins have laid down an elaborate “prescriptive plan making extremely narcissistic demands” on the Government of India to harmonize her national laws, foreign policies and strategic interests according to the foreign policy objectives and strategic vision of the US as enshrined in the Henry L. Hyde Act and the 123 agreement.
In this context, one recalls the famous words of a former US President John F. Kennedy who once said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”! The same aphorism aptly applies for the US policy czars, mandarins, and visionaries current and future included. Rather than US policy planners asking what India can do for the US global strategic interests, the more appropriate question is what the future US administrations would do for India. This would be an important out-of-the-box next step by the US in the avante garde strategic partnership in order to engage India “constructively”. A state department document somewhat patronizingly asserted that the US will assist India achieve a global power status in the 21st century. Nobody makes anybody a global power. Nations achieve that status on their own strength. Of course, India shall do so on her own strength in the near future. From the Indian perspective, the US rhetoric does not match its action in harmonizing US’s actual behavior with the ostensibly stated intent or the verbiage. The fundamental irritant in the bilateral relationship between the two fellow democracies is the repetitive use of wide-ranging sanctions against India by successive US administrations. That regime of still-existing sanctions will have to be completely dismantled by the US unilaterally without seeking anything in return from India. Therefore, a major tectonic paradigm shift is required in the US foreign policy establishment.
The steps for the mating dance Undersecretary Nicholas Burns asked India to learn are strategically inappropriate and potentially self-injurious for India. India might break her femur while dancing to Uncle’s Sam’s seductive music; the tunes, the lyrics and the whole ensemble, of course! Indian civil society perceives duplicity & doublespeak if not outright deception in some of these friendly US overtures. A camouflaged or sugarcoated policy of “Congagement” of India under the garb of engagement certainly will not work. Future US administrations should ask themselves important and pertinent questions like how the US government can change its own behavior and policy framework to accommodate a rising India’s national and strategic interests and democratic aspirations in a global framework that has essentially been decided by the successive US administrations following the 2nd World war. International strategic space can not be occupied indefinitely by the victors of the 2nd World war. US policy wonks should seriously calculate the total long-term costs to the US of “losing India” once again by failing to genuinely engage India in the 3rd millennium.
So far, US attempts to engage India have been ambivalent and half-hearted. US diplomats fail to understand India’s genuine national interests, aspirations and foreign policy and strategic concerns globally. India is not just another banana republic. India does have a proud history of 5000 years’ old civilization whereas in historic terms US is only a recent geo-political entity. True, US is the global “hyper-power” at this juncture! India is rising fast as a serious economic, industrial, intellectual, cultural, civilisational and strategic power-house in the international arena despite numerous mis-steps in the past 60 years. Train India Express cannot be stopped any longer despite laying out railroad blocks; the only real alternatives are to board the train or be left behind on the platform! In the current scenario, the US needs India more than India needs US. Of course, India does need the US in this era of globalization and free trade. India may have been coy or confused in the past about articulating her strategic interests. That situation is no longer likely to be true for a newly resurgent India. The strategic implications of this changing global balance of power dynamics cannot be minimized any longer by the future US Administrations as the world transforms from its current uni-polar moments to a newly emerging multi-polar reality.
It is important to recapitulate the historical antecedents of Indo-US relationship since 1947. The US generally tends to disregard history for short-term policy gains. Without understanding the historical context, proper corrective actions are impossible.
Missed Opportunities & Recent Snafus:
After India’s independence, the US as the imperialistic inheritor of the world order following the end of World War II tended to hurt India’s strategic interests by cultivating Pakistan as a client state. Part of the blame does lie at the doorstep of India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. Characterization of India’s non-alignment stance as “immoral” by John Foster Dulles epitomized the US mindset as essentially blocked with tunnel vision.
Besides the famous tilt to Pakistan, abusive language used by Nixon- Kissinger duo against a former female Indian Prime Minister and also “stereotyping” of Indians in private but taped conversations in the oval office betrays the contempt successive post WW II US administrations held India in. In the mid-eighties a young Indian Prime Minister visited the US. Bilateral agreements on scientific and technological collaboration were signed. The US under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan agreed to sell two Cray supercomputers to India for predicting Monsoon and other weather patterns. Only one Cray supercomputer was delivered; the US non-proliferation ayatollahs blocked the sale of second one forcing India to develop her own parallel processing PARAM supercomputer system.
The US Department of State has been particularly insensitive in the past about the need to engage India in a diplomatic, courteous and honorable manner. For example, Robin Raphael, the former Assistant Secretary of State in the first Clinton administration went on to deny the authenticity of the Instrument of Accession that was signed between the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir and the Government of India in 1947. She also made the notoriously disparaging statement that it is very easy to start a storm in a teacup in New Delhi! The same Robin Raphael is now on the payroll of the Pakistani Government as a paid lobbyist of Pakistan. One wonders how long she had been on the payroll of Government of Pakistan! Immediate and ungrudging US acceptance of the India’s position on the state of Jammu & Kashmir is the need of the hour. Most recent example of such lost opportunities caused by the US arrogance and chutzpah was the undiplomatic behavior of General Colin Powell who as the US Secretary of State visited New Delhi in 2004 and announced the “NSSP: Next Steps in Strategic Partnership” initiative. He was in Islamabad 24 hours later declaring Pakistan as the “Major Non-Nato Ally” (MNNA). Indian sensitivities were not considered. No prior consultations were done. This caused dismay and hurt in the Indian establishment. General Powell gave a lame excuse that he “forgot” to discuss MNNA with his Indian interlocutors just 24 hours before. Elementary my dear Watson, perhaps, this was a severe case of amnesia induced while one General was trying to be the knight in shining armor to rescue his General in distress!
Failure of the US to acknowledge till 9/11 that India is a victim of cross-border Jihadist terrorism from Pakistan remains a sore point for India. In the 1980s, the US covertly supported Khalistani terrorists under the garb of “Human rights” who had committed heinous crimes against innocent Indian civilians. Labeling terrorists as freedom fighters, the US lost any credibility with the civil society in India despite a strong fascination for the US by the burgeoning Indian middle class. The Wlliam Jefferson Clinton administration chose to remain silent in March 1999 when the two Bamiaan Buddha statues were destroyed by the Taliban. The US was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline with the Taliban at that time! When Pakistani Jihadist terrorists hijacked an Indian civilian airliner to Kandahaar, Afghanistan in December 1999 the US did not sanction or even admonish Pakistan or Taliban. Perpetual US reluctance to genuinely condemn the terrorist crimes against India over last several decades was the greatest diplomatic folly. Though some former US officials have acknowledged their mistakes now, there is no corrective policy change as yet.
Successive US administrations (Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43) have scuttled any serious attempts to reform and expand the Security Council of the UN that would have enabled India to be one of the permanent members of the SC. For the US, the sole objective is to maintain its hold on the world body and not allow anyone else to have a say in world affairs. Except for making some vague noises on the principles of reform, the US has not come out categorically in India’s favor as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Inderfurth and Reidel advocate that future US administration should openly support India for the Security Council membership. US could have graciously supported India’s candidate Shashi Tharoor for the UN Secretary General’s position. Reportedly, the US secretly vetoed his candidature enabling Ban Ki Moon to win. Shashi Tharoor would have certainly made a far better UN SG than Ban Ki Moon. Ban ki Moon has been wasting the UN budget on a massive increase in personnel and on staff salaries instead of developmental programs. He has been accused of packing the UN posts with his South Korean cronies who keep on having side-talks in Korean instead of using official UN languages! US lost a golden chance to reform the UN along with a democratic partner, India and Shashi Tharoor as the SG. But alas! Chutzpah, thy name is US Department of State! The Bush administration again in October 2007 voted for the Canadian candidate instead of India's Finance Minister, P Chidambaram to head the International Monetary Fund's Monetary and Financial Committee -- the IMF's influential policymaking body. It was the second time in less than two years that the US had let down India. The US vote for Canada instead of India attracted concerns about cronyism.
Morality, Pragmatism and the Us Foreign Policy:
Lack of harmonization and congruence between the US foreign policy objectives and India’s stated positions is owing to Machiavellian tendencies. Such practices have blinded the US diplomats to India’s moralistic stance whether in the arena of the non-alignment movement, in the interests of the third world countries, in the GATT, in the WTO, in the NPT and its various avatars. Americans are fond of rationalizing their blind and irrational tactical and strategic support for tin-pot dictators and coup plotters world-wide by stating; “Well, he may be a son of a bitch but he is our son of a bitch”! This crass characterization of US self-interests alone as supreme in selectively supporting military dictators worldwide while chiding India for not being democratic enough represents the “Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome” the whole US foreign policy establishment suffers from. The height of brazenness was reflected when a CIA inspired New York Times correspondent Barbara Crossett in the 1990s tried to sell her characterization of India as a “Rogue Democracy”. Being a democracy is not good enough! You have to be the “Right Democracy” on the right side of the US otherwise you would be labeled as a “Rogue Democracy”! A nation that cannot conduct its own presidential elections right and selects the presidents by judicial order has forfeited any rights to comment on India’s vibrant democracy!
Nuclear Spring:
It is unlikely that the US-India civil energy accord will be fully implemented in near future despite last minute efforts to revive it. The US Congress unfairly moved the goalposts. Undersecretary Burns has already submitted his resignation. Its slow death despite attempts to resuscitate is currently causing consternation in the US. The US establishment, including Ambassador David Mullford, is unable to fathom Indian concerns about this deal that is more about US non-proliferation objectives rather than tending to India’s growing energy needs. Something that was initially negotiated in good faith as civil energy accord can not be exploited to satisfy the unrealistic objectives of the US non-proliferation lobby. The alphabet soup (NPT, CTBT, FMCT, MTCR, PSI) that tends to drown India strategically has been cooked by the chef US in order to maintain the dated nature of the P5 club membership. The US tied itself into the knots by creating NSG as an instrument to contain India after the 1974 “Smiling Buddha” nuclear test. It is for the US to extricate itself by untying these knots. The world cannot be frozen into strategic status quo. When India under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee conducted Pokhran II nuclear tests, the Clinton administration went on record to ask a fellow democracy India to CAP, ROLLBACK and eventually ELIMINATE her strategic nuclear assets. Let it be categorically stated that India shall not cap, rollback and eliminate her strategic nuclear program come what may! India values her strategic autonomy and independence. The only way out for the US and other members of the “nuclear club” is to realize and accept India’s exceptionalism; make amends to the NPT and welcome India as an advanced nuclear weapon state with full privileges and ‘rights” of the “club membership”. Any second class citizenship of the “club” would not be acceptable to future Governments of India. Unconditional and immediate acceptance of India as a de facto and de jure nuclear weapon state as defined by a revision of the NPT is called for. Short of that tectonic change in the US attitude, there is not going to be a nuclear spring. Any future Government of India that signs a bilateral or multilateral nuclear agreement restraining India’ strategic nuclear program will not survive the next elections. The only nuclear non-proliferation regime India will consider has to be time-bound totally non-discriminatory universal nuclear disarmament in accordance with the New Delhi Declaration of 1988 signed by the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and ex-Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev. Since both the Bush administration and the Man Mohan Singh government are lame ducks now, future elected officials will deal with the issue of nuclear rapprochement! It is an issue of very grave concern that Richard Boucher wants approval of the nuclear deal by stealth and by backdoor when he claims that a caretaker government of India or a minority government’s signing the nuclear accord would be “kosher” from the US perspective. This raises doubts about the indecent haste in trying to formalize and implement a bilateral accord by both governments on their last legs.
Securing Indian Subcontinent:
India is surrounded by countries that are either failed states or are on the path to become failed states. The inability of these failed states to sort out their internal problems generates neighbors’ envy and of course tendency to adopt a “victim” role and internationalize any minor problems. Overzealous US support for the now defunct Gujral Doctrine further emboldened some of these failed states to project their internal problems on to India. Some of these failed states have tried to play global power politics by inviting superpowers into the region to contain India’s economic, industrial and military rise. These failed states in the Indian subcontinent have historically played their China card or US card against India on numerous occasions. Rationalization of state sponsored cross-border terrorism directed against India by US diplomats in the pre 9/11 era is still fresh in the minds of Indian policy planners. Though India does not wish to become an authentic regional hegemon, she may have to bring order in this very chaotic region in her backyard owing to deep cultural, historical and civilizational ties along with the tyranny of geographic proximity. India cannot wish away these troubled neighbors even if she wished to do so. However, India cannot afford to have instability in her vicinity. From Indian perspective, these failed states need to undertake structural reforms, democratize genuinely and become prosperous so that terrorism can be eliminated from the region. India can and will help them.
A rising India would like both the US and China to stop trying to spread their influence country after country in the immediate vicinity of India. India would not condone alien superpowers if they invade India’s sacred strategic space. Near abroad region around India should remain free of the superpower rivalry between the US and China. Just like the US did not tolerate nuclear missiles in its backyard triggering the Cuban missiles crisis in the 1960s or the Russia currently having difficulty tolerating Poland and Czech territories as part of US’ Strategic Missile defense shield, India certainly would not wish to see a nuclear armed and unstable Bangladesh or a nuclear armed and unstable Myanmar joining the company of a nuclear armed and unstable Pakistan. India as an emergent global power would like to manage her own backyard and shall brook no interference from any quarters however benign. If the interference does not stop, a resurgent India may have to take appropriate pre-emptive, remedial steps so that Indian strategic interests in her neighborhood are not jeopardized. India certainly would not look for any one’s permission to do so and no one should be surprised if that happens in near future.
Historic Tilt towards Pakistan:
The soft underbelly of the US giant is the failed state of Pakistan and Jihadi Terrorism emanating from Pakistan. As we speak, the unraveling of recent events in Pakistan, murder of Benazir Bhutto and the continued US support to the failing dictatorship of General Musharraf reflects the intellectual bankruptcy of the Bush-43 foreign policy team. Robust support for serial military dictatorships in Pakistan has been the normative behavior of successive US administrations. The infamous tilt shown historically by US administrations towards Pakistan and directed against India’s strategic interests did affect the nature, quality and dimensions of Indo-US relations in the past 60 years. Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark in their recent book entitled “Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons” accuse the US Department of State of suffering from a severe case of “Clientitis” vis a vis Pakistan. Since 2001, the US has provided the terrorist state of Pakistan military aid worth 11 billion dollars without any results. You do not fight terrorism by providing Pakistani military machine with nuclear capable F16 fighter jets. The US policy on Pakistan can be summarized in one sentence:”Support the latest military dictator”! Nation states do make historical mistakes and reap the harvest of those mistakes. The now defunct Soviet Union did commit strategic mistakes and certainly paid for it. India also has committed strategic mistakes and has paid dearly for them. The same holds true for the only global “hyper-power”. George Santayana once said: “Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the history”. If the US has to come out of the Terroristic & Talibani quagmire of Jihadistan (the geographically contiguous region of Afghanistan, Waziristan & Pakistan), there is no other alternative for the US but to do a course correction after a deep introspection of its past thinking, theories, behaviors and actions. Accepting the past mistakes will certainly help the US in preventing it from emulating the Soviet fate in this region. Myanmar versus Pakistan, US concern for democracy in the Indian subcontinent is highly selective.
In the post-Cold war era de-hyphenating the relationship with India and Pakistan alone is not enough for the US. There has to be an exercise of deep national introspection on failed foreign policies of successive US administrations in relation to Pakistan. There has to be a public contrition by the US for the past sins along with promises of future actual, measurable good behaviors. There is a dire strategic need for the US Administration to bring out an un-sanitized, un-redacted and complete white paper on its entire gamut of relationships with Pakistan in totality since the inception of that state in 1947. A formal declaration by the US characterizing Pakistan and its chief financial backer, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as rogue states sponsoring terrorism will definitely help. The past sins of previous US Administrations can certainly “forgiven” by a magnanimous and an indulgent India but they cannot be “forgotten” altogether. Future “good as well as bad” behaviors of the US administrations are likely to be scrutinized very closely by the future Governments of India.
India, Us and China:
Since 1970 the US cultivated communist China as an ally to the horror of the entire democratic world. During the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, Nixon & Kissinger encouraged China to attack India. Later on, while India was targeted as an enemy nation by the 301 and the super 301 trade protection laws, China was granted most favored nation (MFN) status annually by the US Congress. China’s transfer of nuclear technology and bomb design to Pakistan in 1988-1989 did not evoke any US response from the George H. W. Bush administration. The horrors of the Tiananmen Square massacre did not cause outrage in the Bush-41 administration. The US missed an opportunity to leverage the international community in order to solve the problem of Chinese occupation of Tibet in 1989. Chinese transfer of Ballistic Missiles in the early 1990s to Pakistan did not elicit any sanctions from the William Jefferson Clinton Administration. Though the US honeymoon with China is now over, the US continues to allow communist China to buy nuclear reactors but sanctions a democratic India even now. Even now with China’s brutal repression in Tibet, the US has been waffling on any strong measures to censor China’s brazen conduct.
India does not wish to be used as a US proxy to contain China in the Asian theatre as India believes genuinely in the inevitability of a multi-polar world. A newly resurgent India will deal with China on her own steam. India does not need to ally with US against China as it certainly would not gang up against US in company of Russia and China in accordance with the Primakov Doctrine. Yes, Chinese behavior does cause for concern in India. China needs to understand that India will engage each and every nation and geo-political entity on the basis of her own strength, sovereignty and national aspirations without being bullied by anyone. India is a democracy and would definitely find it easier to work with other democracies in the international arena. A resurgent India will not feel apologetic about her bilateral and multilateral relationships with other democratic nations in Asia and elsewhere. If China needs to work “harmoniously” with India, it needs to speedily transform itself into a mature, pluralistic democracy as Indians know it. China should not whine about India’s relationship with the US or with any other democracy as it will not help China diplomatically. Similarly, the US should not expect India to become a subservient junior partner helping it contain or balance China in the Asian theatre. India is too proud a nation to do that and will never do that. Nor should US contemplate ganging with China and others to hamstring India’s strategic options whether in the SCP5, NPT or NSG. In the ultimate analysis, a resurgent India will always be pro-India, and not pro-US, pro-Soviet, pro-China or pro-Russia or pro-Whatever!
Natural Allies:
While the world’s oldest democracy and the largest democracy are natural allies, friends and natural allies certainly do not spy on each other. Such episodes are serious impediments to improvement in bilateral relationship. Perhaps, the future US administrations will have to relearn that honesty counts in friendly relationships between two nation states as it counts among individuals. Espionage activities directed towards India need to stop immediately. It is not something new; each decade has witnessed US attempts to infiltrate India’s politicians and bureaucrats. In the 1970s, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared that there was a CIA agent in her cabinet. Later on, Seymour Hirsch claimed that the CIA agent in Indira Gandhi’s cabinet was the former Prime Minister Morarji Desai. Former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh wrote in his book about a US Mole in the Prime Minister’s Office in the mid 1990s during Prime Minister Narsimha Rao’s time. Two recent episodes of espionage were described in depth by Major General VK Singh in his book entitled “India’s External Intelligence”. These episodes cast the US in a very poor light as a friendly nation to India. The first episode happened in May 2004 when CIA mole in the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) Rabinder Singh was spirited out of India to the US. More recently in 2006, Rosanne Minchew, a young female US embassy official was involved in breaching Indian security in the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). She obtained sensitive data on USB drives copied from the computers of the NSCS from R&AW staff. She made several personal trips together with Commander Mukesh Saini who introduced her to his subordinate SS Paul, a computer analyst. This was a classic case of “honey trap” in which sex and money were used to spy on India. There were also CIA inspired plans to encourage secessionist activity in the North-east part of India specifically a blue-print for creation of “United States of Assam”. If the US is serious about cultivating strategic relationship with India, espionage activities targeted against a fellow democracy will have to cease completely.
The Long Journey Ahead, Indeed:
Since thinking as well as the behavior of recent US administrations is still conditioned by the past prism of cold war, it will be appropriate for the future US administrations to change the basic mindset while dealing with India. In the 1971 during the Bangladesh liberation war, the Nixon administration had sent the US Navy’s 7th fleet to the Bay of Bengal to covertly threaten India with “consequences”. A formal apology by the US for sending its 7th fleet in 1971 in the Bay of Bengal during the Indo-Pak war of 1971 is still awaited. More recently, the US troika of Henry Kissinger, Henry M. Paulson and David C. Mullford attempted to coerce India and lobby the leaders of opposition to kow-tow to the US strategic interests and approve the 123 agreement in the Indian parliament. There have been overt and covert threats from these distinguished worthies about linking permanent membership of the UN Security Council with smooth passage of the 123 agreement in the Indian parliament.
Credibility of the US as strategic partner of India shall depend upon changes in actual US behavior. The US rhetoric must match its action on the ground. Continuation of “prescriptive” approach and frequent demands on India to change her foreign policy in accordance with US strategic objectives by insignificant members of the US Congress or minor bureaucrats will not take future US administrations anywhere. Opportunistic shifting of goal-posts in civil nuclear energy deal and reneging on previously negotiated bilateral and multilateral agreements in the past do not inspire confidence. India’s sensitivities as the largest functioning democracy have to be understood clearly. In a democracy, all important decisions are taken by the people & the parliament of that country and not by demarches of foreign governments! India will continue to have multi-dimensional relationships with other nations including Russia and Iran despite having good relations with the US.
As the Indian diplomats and politicians of this era, fearful of the breach of diplomatic protocol, may not speak so bluntly, may not articulate a pro-India view so cogently, may not enunciate India’s hopes and aspirations so clearly; someone, albeit a private individual, has the responsibility to call a spade a spade and convey the true feelings and sense of a resurgent India to the future US administrations that the diplomatese jargon can not express. Future efforts at containment and congagement of India and her strategic nuclear program will not work. Nor would work any attempts to lay a “honey trap” to contain India’s strategic options. The relationship has to be of genuine reciprocity between two equals or between two brothers rather being master-slave relationship. For lack of a better expression, it can be called Adityan Doctrine! The US policy and strategy establishment will have to seek a successful cure for the “Narcissistic Entitlement Syndrome” it has historically suffered from. The US will have to learn to be humble and honest while dealing with a rising India. And India will have to be more assertive and articulate in expressing and delineating her strategic interests. It is true that India and the US will have to indulge in a complex and ritualized mating dance with very intricate footwork and steps for future engagement. Mere need for such a mating dance should not be usurped to foist the suicidal role of “Bhasmasura” upon India while the US seductively portrays herself as a coy “Mohini” on the dance floor in the disapproving presence of the international ayatollahs of non-proliferation theology!
Guiding Principles and Benchmarks for Future:
We certainly have the glorious opportunity to synergize the strengths and creative energies of two largest democracies. There are people to people relationships now. Pew research survey of world-wide attitudes suggests a lot of goodwill in India about the US. For the strategic relationship to move forward, the US will have to make unilateral concessions by making a clean break from its past. Since both the Bush administration and the Man Mohan Singh government are lame ducks now, new beginnings can be made by future US administrations in dealing with a resurgent India. Let the US policy establishment free itself from the shackles of the ayatollahs of non-proliferation theology. A new dawn in Indo-US relations can start with the US giving its immediate, unconditional, unqualified, un-hesitating, unequivocal and open support for India’s bid for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council without beating around any bush. Another significant unilateral CBM involves facilitating India’s reprocessing rights on the spent nuclear fuel for the Tarapore Atomic Power Station (TAPS) to help with India’s growing energy needs. A formal US apology for unilaterally abrogating bilateral agreements on supply of nuclear fuel for the TAPS and payment of monetary damages for the losses suffered thereby consequent upon US failure to supply the nuclear fuel is necessary in mitigating the past hurts. India would not like her bilateral relationship with US being constrained by her relationship with a resurgent Russia or with Iran with whom India has civilization links for more than five thousand years. There is no zero sum game in these multi-dimensional relationships India has with various countries and the US policy makers should refrain from putting conditionalities on India.
Following 5 Mantras and 10 Commandments have been enunciated for the future US Administrations so that they do not blunder yet again in making wrong and self-defeating strategic choices vis-à-vis India. Though not proposed as benchmarks, these will become de facto benchmarks to judge future US behavior towards India. If the US policy planners and government officials adopt and internalize the proposed 5 Mantras and 10 Commandments, the relationship between the two great democratic nations would be smooth. The future Indo-US relationship will be predicated on the following bench-marks:
Five Mantras:
India is a re-emerging superpower that cannot be stopped!
India is a pluralistic democracy.
India is an ancient civilization that is proud of her glorious past, aware of her current limitations and fully cognizant of her future potential, roles and responsibilities.
India cannot be contained as she shall not bow or bend.
India shall prevail over all the adversities with resilience.
Ten Commandments:
Thou shall not interfere in the internal affairs of India.
Thou shall not block India’s entry into the P5.
Thou shall not spy on India.
Thou shall not expect India to change her independent foreign policy.
Thou shall not place trade restrictions and visa obstructions in the path of Indian scientists and professionals who provide important services.
Thou shall not send Evangelist, Baptist, Christian missionaries to India under garb of tourists and CIA agents under the garb of journalists.
Thou shall express sincere apologies for “breach of a bilateral contract between two sovereign nations” on Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) and make amends for the same.
Thou shall not prop up serial military dictatorships of Pakistan on one pretext or another.
Thou shall not play the China card against India.
Thou shall not act as the policeman of the Indian subcontinent.
Dr. Adityanjee is the President of Council for Strategic Affairs, New Delhi
India to invite bids for purchase of 312 helicopters
Close on the heels of floating multi-billion dollar global tenders for buying long-range artillery guns, India plans to invite international bids for purchase of 312 light helicopters. The tenders for these helicopters, 197 for the army aviati on and another 115 for the air force, are to be floated in the next few days and are estimated to be worth over $2 billion.
India plans to buy these helicopters to give its forces capability of rapid deployment and for logistics support on the icy heights of Siachen glacier.
"These choppers are being inducted to enhance the operational capability of the armed forces in the high Himalayan frontiers", according to the Defence Secretary Mr Vijay Singh.
Textron-based American helicopter major Bell, European arms major EADS, Russia's Kamov and Italian Augusta Westland are expected to be the main bidders for the Indian tenders.
The four helicopter manufacturers were also the bidders in the Indian army request for proposals for 197 helicopters, which was cancelled at the last moment after government said rules of procurement had been flouted by a bidder. At the time of cancellat ion of the deal, officials were engaged in price negotiation.
The combined army and IAF tenders were to be out in the first week of this month, but were delayed as the air force was late in firming up its requirements, according to officials.
India plans to buy these helicopters to give its forces capability of rapid deployment and for logistics support on the icy heights of Siachen glacier.
"These choppers are being inducted to enhance the operational capability of the armed forces in the high Himalayan frontiers", according to the Defence Secretary Mr Vijay Singh.
Textron-based American helicopter major Bell, European arms major EADS, Russia's Kamov and Italian Augusta Westland are expected to be the main bidders for the Indian tenders.
The four helicopter manufacturers were also the bidders in the Indian army request for proposals for 197 helicopters, which was cancelled at the last moment after government said rules of procurement had been flouted by a bidder. At the time of cancellat ion of the deal, officials were engaged in price negotiation.
The combined army and IAF tenders were to be out in the first week of this month, but were delayed as the air force was late in firming up its requirements, according to officials.
Check out this cockpit on the prototype IJT.
Notice use of the same HUD as LCA.This will make the transition process between aircrafts much shorter and easier for our pilots.
For 4 yrs, VIPs flying unsafe
While pointing out several infirmities in the acquisition process of aircraft for the Indian Air Force’s VIP squadron, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has revealed that the IAF has been ferrying the country’s leaders in aircraft that have been unsuitable for VIP flights for the past four years.Stating that the process deviated from laid down procedures and recognised norms of propriety, the CAG, in its latest report has brought out that supplies valuing 50 million dollars were contracted without the benefit of competition. Besides, the acquisition of aircraft and self-protection suites were inordinately delayed, leading to a total cost escalation of 20 million dollars.The Ministry of Defence had concluded a contract with Boeing in October 2005 for three business jets at a cost of 161 million dollars (Rs 734 crore) to replace the two existing Boeing 737 held by the IAF’s Communications Squadron. Another contract was concluded for self-protection suites for the aircraft at a cost of 45 million dollars (Rs 203 crore).The Delhi-based Communications Squadron, which operates a mix of Boeing 737, Embraer Legacy business jets and helicopters, is responsible for the air travel of the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, service chiefs and a few select people.The CAG report stated that the operational requirements pertaining to communication facilities, instrument landing system, cabin layout and interiors, put forward during the acquisition process, were incomplete and tentative.The technical evaluation of the aircraft was not comprehensive and no flight evaluation of the aircraft had been offered by the two vendors (Boeing and Airbus) in the fray. Further, several concessions were made to the selected bidder and several deviations from standard contract conditions were allowed.The CAG also revealed that the IAF’s approach towards the self-protection suite, a mandatory fitment for VIP aircraft, was uncertain and flawed. According to the CAG report, the IAF frequently changed its requirements and opted for a system that did not meet its own broad technical requirements. Finally a system that had not been evaluated by the IAF was accepted. This resulted in further problems as the system did not have provision for “in-country programming” which would now have to be done at extra cost.Despite spending Rs 937 crore, the new aircraft, which are scheduled to enter service this year, would not be used for international travel, necessitating continued lease of Air India aircraft with all its adverse consequences. Moreover, the CAG has held the procurement of the three jets to replace two aircraft as unjustified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)