2ndlook

How Muscular Is India’s Foreign Policy

Posted in America, British Raj, China, Current Affairs, India, Indo Pak Relations, politics by Anuraag Sanghi on November 2, 2011

Does India have a foreign policy at all? What does it seek to achieve? How has it changed over the decades.

No party has won a majority on merit after Indira's Gandhi's 1980 poll victory. 30 years of disconnect with the Indian voter. (Cartoon by RK Laxman; Image source and courtesy - outlookindia.com) Click for source image.

No party has won a majority on merit after Indira's Gandhi's 1980 poll victory. 30 years of disconnect with the Indian voter. (Cartoon by RK Laxman; Image source and courtesy - outlookindia.com) Click for source image.

Does India have a Foreign Policy

As India stabilized from a rickety, post-colonial economy to an emerging power in the last 60 years, Indian Foreign Policy has seen little analysis from context and utility standpoint.

Most critics of Indian Foreign Policy have used a flavor-of-the-season approach – and failed to present the evolution of the policy over the last 60 odd years.

And the challenges.

The last 30 years

The last thirty years has been a difficult period for Indian polity – and development of Indian foreign policy doctrine.

Of the first 40 years (1950-1990), two Prime Ministers (JL Nehru and Indira Gandhi) ruled for 31 of the 40 years. The next 20 years saw just three prime ministers (PVN, ABV, MMS) last for more than 4 years in power – from seven Prime Ministers in all. No Indian political party has been able to win an absolute majority on merit, now for 30 years after Indira Gandhi’s win in 1980. Rajiv Gandhi’s electoral victory after 1984 assassination of Indira Gandhi was ‘tainted’ with a sympathy vote for Congress.

Thirty years without a positive mandate for any political party is a tough commentary on Indian polity – and its inability to connect to the Indian Voter.

War on three fronts

Sun Tzu or Clausewitz.

Every military strategist has warned against opening war on two fronts. But, two fronts were assured against Pakistan itself – on the eastern front in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) and against mainland Pakistan (then West Pakistan) on the west.

To that was a real risk of China joining in with a third front. During the 1965 and the 1971 Bangladesh War, India had to factor a third front that could be opened by China against India. Thundering in the parliament, Pakistan’s foreign minister at that time, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto assured the Pakistani nation of China’s support.

In the event of war, Pakistan would not be alone. Pakistan would be helped by the most powerful nation in Asia. War between India and Pakistan involves the territorial integrity and security of the largest State in Asia. (Z.A. Bhutto, Foreign Minister, Pakistan, in the National Assembly; July 17, 1963).

At least the US tried very hard to ensure that China supported Pakistan with more than lip service. In the 1965 India-Pakistan War, Indian diplomacy had ensured Chinese neutrality – and China did not move an inch.

On the diplomatic front, China had been checkmated to paralysis – a position that China adopted in 1971 Bangladesh War also.

Prison camp: Thousands of Mau Mau 'suspected' freedom fighters were rounded up during Kenya's fight for independence. (Image source and courtesy - dailymail.co.uk). Click for larger image.

Prison camp: Thousands of Mau Mau 'suspected' freedom fighters were rounded up during Kenya's fight for independence. (Image source and courtesy - dailymail.co.uk). Click for larger image.

Without guns, food and money

After India’s independence, colonialism was not dead. USA was trying to take over Western colonies by installing proxy rulers in colonies.

Britain and France attempted to re-establish control over strategic positions in the world. The Suez Crisis was the high point of trying to roll back history.

Indonesia kept its freedom (1949), when Indian Govt. threatened to shoot down Dutch aircraft. Kenya (independence-12 December 1963) and Malaysia (independence-31 August 1957) paid a heavy price during their fight to throw off colonial rulers. US armies were killing millions across Asia – in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Korea. India’s own independence hung by a thread. Harold Macmillan’s ‘wind of change’ was yet only words – and no action.

In such a situation Nehru’s foreign policy put an economically and militarily strong West on the defensive – against a militarily weak India.

Nehruvian foreign policy

Nehruvian foreign policy, India FP-One, based on anti-colonial agenda, pro-democracy, global agenda, relevant during the 1950-1970 period, saw Europe lose its colonies. Remarkably insensitive to India’s self-interest, Nehruvian foreign policy instead projected India onto global stage, as an anti-imperialism crusader.

Under FP-One, India could be pro-US also. Nehru unleashed anti-Soviet rhetoric along with the Eisenhower administration during the Hungarian Uprising – and anti-Europe during the Suez crisis. The Non Aligned Movement while making noise, posed no military threat. All the Super-powers paid attention to NAM positions and criticism.

Having made its mark on the world stage, FP-One succeeded entirely on powers of suasion and reason. Post-colonial India, without any military rank or an economic power, could yet make world powers listen to FP-One. Nehru’s own charisma had much to do with success of FP-One.

Nehru’s era saw a marked deterioration in relationships with major neighbouring countries – Pakistan and China. Nehru’s unpreparedness resulted in a disastrous confrontation with China – and the loss of Tibet. Stalin had little time for India during India FP-One.

Except for one agreement, which saw large Soviet imports of Indian cinematic content that made Indian actors household names in Soviet Union.

After Nehru? Who, What, How …

For most of the world, The India Question was – After Nehru, what?

Division is the essence of Indian polity. The fierce noise of linguistic riots in Bombay and elsewhere is heard from afar. Mr.Nehru should not equate the authority of his person with any fundamental cohesion in his country. In the absence of his cementing figure, these divisions are bound to enlarge. (Pakistan Times, Lahore, November 25, 1955).

No coincidence that Pakistani planned its 1965 assault soon after Nehru’s death. Pakistan tested Indian resolve in 1965, after the 1962 border conflict with China, which by most accounts went against India. India’s official rendition of the 1962 encounter with China remains classified.

Nehru and thoughtful colleagues, SK Patil, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Desai, Govind Ballabh Pant and Krishna Menon. Mao and Zhou Enlai watch over the border-fence the embarrassed Indian leaders who do not know how to react. (Shankar / Shankar's Weekly / November 20, 1960). Image source and courtesy - friendsoftibet.org. Click for source image.

Nehru and thoughtful colleagues, SK Patil, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Morarji Desai, Govind Ballabh Pant and Krishna Menon. Mao and Zhou Enlai watch over the border-fence the embarrassed Indian leaders who do not know how to react. (Shankar / Shankar's Weekly / November 20, 1960). Image source and courtesy - friendsoftibet.org. Click for source image.

LB Shastri, India’s combative Prime Minister after Nehru, with none of Nehru’s oratorical skills, was able to surprisingly unite and galvanize morale with his Jai Jawan and Jai Kisan strategy – aligning the ‘trinity’ of government, army and people (in terms of Clausewitz Theory).

India, battling food shortages, after the colonial destruction of Indian agricultural system, was still in a feeble recovery stage.

Indian army working with WWII vintage arms and ammunition was ill-prepared to confront Pakistan, an American–armed-and-aided CENTO alliance partner. After the 1962 debacle against China, India made creditable, though slender, territorial gains. India had retaken territory in Kashmir, with Indian armies in sniffing distance of Lahore.

Chinese inaction during the 1965 War is a less analyzed factor of the 1965 War. India’s relationship with the Soviets had not yet reached the levels of the 1970s. What and who stopped China from joining Pakistan in its assault on India?

Was China’s support for Pakistan in the 1965 War limited to lip sympathy?

Troubled Times

In such a precarious situation, India fended off Pakistan – with the Soviet Union and the USA pushing for a quick ceasefire. The Soviet Union followed up with peace talks offer at Tashkent – the template that the US followed during the many Camp David talks.

Indian contingent landed up in Tashkent with Shastri in the lead – and Pakistan contingent with General Mohammed Ayub Khan. Shastri returned home to India – in a coffin, after a cardiac arrest. For the next two decades, Shastri’s death was fodder for conspiracy theories, hinting at plot by Indira Gandhi-Soviet Union, as the main players.

A New Alliance is Sealed

The development of FP2 started soon after India-Pakistan War of 1965 during LB Shastri’s regime, even as FP-One was no longer effective without Nehru.

After Tashkent, India decided to reject all outside interventions and involvement in bilateral matters. All UN resolutions on India-Pakistan conflicts started getting treated as ‘history’. Super-power offers for mediation are no longer welcome or entertained by India.

Solid Bedrock

The other major outcome after the 1965 War was India-Soviet Union alliance, under Brezhnev. Built on the pillars of

  • Russian oil for India, priced, paid, and designated in Indian rupees. Big win for both countries, as both had forex problems.
  • Soviet armaments for India, again in Indian rupees, to balance Indian exports of Indian tobacco, tea, engineering goods, consumer products, all in the era of shortages of consumer goods in USSR
  • Russian veto in UN in exchange for a Non Aligned commitment to give unbiased hearing to Soviet positions

it was a win-win agreement.

Soviet Union won respectability in global forums – and India was no longer dependent on the West for crucial imports like oil and heavy industry technology (nuclear, tyres, oil exploration, etc.). This foreign policy direction was a marked evolution from Nehruvian foreign policy (India FP-One).

India’s decade of muscular diplomacy

Looking back, FP2 survived an ordeal by fire with the first decade itself. Three events prove that it was a remarkable decade which shaped Indian foreign policy (FP2) for the next thirty years.

1971 – BanglaDesh War

In the 1965 India-Pakistan War, Indian diplomacy had ensured Chinese neutrality – and China did not move an inch. On the diplomatic front, China had been checkmated to paralysis – a position that China adopted in 1971 Bangladesh War also.

What made the Chinese so careful in 1971?

Before the 1971 Bangladesh War, the punishment that the Chinese received in the Zhenbao-Damanskii Island border (1969) conflict at the hands of the Soviets made the Chinese very careful. The Russians were even considering a nuclear attack on China. Aware of Soviet support to India, in the India-Bangladesh War – the Chinese adopted a complete hands-off attitude.

A younger Leonid Brezhnev with LB Shastri. Kosygin, Brezhnev's deputy, presided over Tashkent talks. 11:21 09/09/2009; © RIA Novosti. Yuryi Abramochkin

A younger Leonid Brezhnev with LB Shastri. Kosygin, Brezhnev's deputy, presided over Tashkent talks. 11:21 09/09/2009; © RIA Novosti. Yuryi Abramochkin

Staring down the West

The India-Soviet alliance also enabled India to counter the Chinese atomic bomb threat with its own Pokhran explosion in 1974.

In October 1961, a British journalist reported an estimate by Nehru that India could produce an atomic weapon in 2 years.

A reiteration of Nehru’s 1958 statement, what probably held back India from 1958-1974, was military and economic unpreparedness, to withstand sanctions by the West, that would follow an atomic test. The Indo-Soviet alliance also gave India the comfort of a Soviet veto in UN Security Council.

The first nuclear test by a non-P5 (USA, Soviet Union, China, UK, France) nation, India was in a precarious position. Assured of a Soviet veto on the Indian side, with Indian agriculture making a stunning comeback in the 70’s, buffered by Soviet Oil supplies and Bombay High, India was able to stare down Western disapproval of Pokhran atomic explosion for the next 25 years.

Compared to a ‘soft State’ like India, more ‘hard-line’ countries like apartheid South Africa and Israel, that counted Western nations as close allies, could not take the final step of an open, atomic bomb explosion.

MNCs – Go Home

The third major foreign policy initiative was an economic policy that severely impacted Western multinationals. In a decade when CIA /MNCs made and unmade Governments across the world, like in Iran, Latin America, Africa, this was a case where principle won over prudence. The Janata Party Government that come to power for the first time in 1977, pushed for dilution of foreign ownership in Indian subsidiaries of MNCs.

This evoked a storm of protest – and some companies like IBM and Coke, US icons in the 70s, walked out of India.

Under Nehru's Foreign Policy, India's voice was heard by super-powers, on the global stage. Even though India was militarily and economically weak. This cartoon from a British magazine shows Nehru's position on Suez rankled in Britain. Kashmir was a part of India - and Suez was NOT a part of Britain, but a part of Egypt. (Nehru - on Kasmir - On Suez; artist: Ronald Searle. Published in Punch Magazine 23 January 1957. Cartoon source and courtesy - punchcartoons.com; ). Click for source image.

Under Nehru's Foreign Policy, India's voice was heard by super-powers, on the global stage. Even though India was militarily and economically weak. This cartoon from a British magazine shows Nehru's position on Suez rankled in Britain. Kashmir was a part of India - and Suez was NOT a part of Britain, but a part of Egypt. (Nehru - on Kasmir - On Suez; artist: Ronald Searle. Published in Punch Magazine 23 January 1957. Cartoon source and courtesy - punchcartoons.com; ). Click for source image.

Soviet Union collapses

FP-One outlived its utility after decolonization of Africa and South East Asia.

The end of FP2 started with the meltdown of oil and gold prices during the 1990-2000 period.

This meltdown saw the Soviet Union bankrupted. Saddled with subsidies and aid to allies in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America saw Soviet Union slither into an economic morass.

Rapid and ineffectual leadership changes  after Brezhnev’s death (Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko and finally Gorbachev) saw a directionless and geriatric Communist Party, at the head of the Soviet Empire.

Foreign Policy On The Brink

By the year 2000, India FP2 was in crisis. Yanked out of its comfort zone of India-Soviet axis, after the USSR’s collapse, India FP2 was buffeted by the din of a ‘uni-polar’ world. India’s increasing imports of Western technology and products, that started with a trickle during Indira Gandhi regime of 1980-1984, soon gained pace. Deregulation of Indian auto sector saw increasing oil imports – with stagnant India’s oil production.

During the last 10 years, one can see signs of India FP-III taking shape. What are the features of India FP-III?

FP-III Takes Shape

One major fallout from the crash of FP2 was armament imports. Under FP2, India imported major armament systems from Soviet Union. India’s import of Jaguar, Mirage jet fighters and Bofors howitzers happened in the dying stages of FP2. With Soviet armament production systems in disarray and bankrupted, India needed alternatives – and fast. Dependence on the US-armaments was seen as an unreliable alternative.

Israel come in

In such a situation, India went for Israeli imports.

Designating Israel as an armaments vendor, freed FP-III from influence of external policy guide-lines. This gave India access of armaments from a vendor, which was also a significant user of the same armaments. Israeli armaments were also designed for low-intensity conflict – similar to Indian usage profile.

In parallel, India went ahead and signed armament co-development deals with the Russia. Brahmos missile is the first success from FP-III. The 5th Generation fighter aircraft being jointly developed is the next major step. The new aircraft carrier is the other major initiative.

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal may not deliver all that has been promised in the future. Yet, in the immediate now, it has delivered a resounding approval of FP-III. The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approved a differential status for India – equivalent to a Nuclear Power.

Without signing the CTBT or the NPT, FP-III’s ability to achieve global consensus on the nuclear issue, is an important milestone.

Western racism became a mainstream topic by the time of FP2. Western media started open introspection. (Never understood why Pakistanis don't got on with their Indian neighbours back home. They're all human beings... Sorry. No coloureds'. Punch Magazine Cartoon by David Langdon; Published - 1965.09.15.) Click for source image.

Western racism became a mainstream topic by the time of FP2. Western media started open introspection. (Never understood why Pakistanis don't got on with their Indian neighbours back home. They're all human beings... Sorry. No coloureds'. Punch Magazine Cartoon by David Langdon; Published - 1965.09.15.) Click for source image.

In the neighbourhood

India’s ability to get a foot inside Afghanistan, in spite of much opposition from Pakistan, may see India reap significant dividends with Central Asian oil and raw material resources. The turnaround in Bangladesh, after the new dispensation has come to power, breaks fresh ground in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has taken some significant actions against anti-India forces in Bangladesh – a sign of comfort for FP-III. Myanmar’s flirtation with China, according to some, maybe cooling off.

FP-III has also seen a change in handling Pakistan. From a rhetorical, tit-for-tat approach, Indian response to Pakistan has seen a change. The recent trade push with Pakistan may see an important Pakistani constituency root for a better India-Pakistan relationship. While Pakistan is being pushed to deliver on the anti-terrorism front, there is sense in seeing the changing Pakistani calculus.

Sizing Up China in South China Sea

An interesting development in FP-III was confronting China in South China Sea. Instead of precipitating a conflict situation in Indian border areas, is to take the battle to China in South China Sea. On the eve of delivery of Admiral Gorshkov, Indian Navy’s latest aircraft carrier, Indian Navy has better symmetry with Chinese Navy – that is struggling with scaling up.

Any confrontation in the South China Sea, between China on one side, against an India-Vietnam opposition, will see China friendless, in international diplomacy. With an appreciating yuan, and slowdown in Chinese economy imminent, the Chinese are likely to be circumspect – and the Indian hand will only get stronger.

How has India FP-III shaped up in the last 10 years.

Measuring FP-III

Many of FP-III initiatives may take a few decades to pay off – and will take persistence from India’s foreign policy apparatus. However, if the contours of a FP-III can take shape in this period of flux in Indian polity, an optimistic outlook can be deemed as realistic.

Much like the various mantras of American foreign policy are evoked, in the modern Indian context, homage is paid to the idea of NAM. But clearly, it is seen as an idea whose time has gone. Its effectiveness can be gauged from the strong reactions that it elicited from Nixon.

The table below presents a matrix to map outcomes, objectives, alliances and policies that Indian foreign policy has used in the last 60 years. As can be seen, Indian FP-One, FP2 and FP-III were rooted in the global realities of that time – and based on Indian needs and requirements of that time.

FP-One (1950-1970)

FP2 (1970-2000)

FP-III (2000-Now)

Leverage
  • Nehru’s charisma
  • Indo-Soviet Alliance
  • Indian economic power
Key Achievements
  • Decolonization
  • Third World dialogue
  • India heard at world forums
  • Defence production gathers steam
  • Soviet technology used for oil exploration
  • 1971 Bangladesh War
  • FP not influenced by armament purchases
  • Armament vendors instead of alliances
  • Un-committed to any super-power
Key Failures
  • Defence unpreparedness
  • Relationship with neighbours deteriorate
  • Tibet lost to China
  • UN interventions
  • Foreign policy influenced by Soviet line
  • Economic interests neglected
  • Limited access to Western technology, economy, finance
  • China, Pakistan relations not stable
  • Over engagement with West
  • Global initiatives (like NAM) impaired.
Key Features
  • Indian interests secondary
  • Global situation in focus
  • No Super-power tilt
  • Indo-Soviet alliance stitched
  • NAM acquires traction
  • Indian interests acquire importance
  • Super-power interventions rejected.
  • Indian interests paramount
  • FP-III depends less on Super-power coat-tails
  • Issue based engagement with P5
Key Persona
  • JL Nehru
  • Indira Gandhi
  • AB Vajpayee in Janata Party govt (1977-1979).
  • Rajiv Gandhi
  • AB Vajpayee
  • Manmohan Singh
Key events
  • Nehru-Eisenhower dynamics
  • Hungarian Uprising
  • Suez Crisis
  • 1971 Bangladesh War
  • Pokhran Atomic blast
  • MNCs brought to heel; IBM, Coke thrown out
  • Indo-US Nuclear deal
  • India Vietnam alliance in South China Sea
  • G20 inclusion

foreign minister at that time, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Parag Tope said, on November 2, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    some thoughts:

    Any reason not to include 1998 nuclear tests and 1999 kargil?

    “over engagement with the west” as a key failure… you need to elaborate. first, “over engagement” – as in excessive engagement, I take, has a relative connotation – the question is versus whom? or do you mean that it was an obsession?

    about the nuclear deal… I think the postscript has really surprised many analysts… it has demonstrated the continuity of foreign policy, despite power shifts, and the strength and maturity of Indian democracy to handle bullying…

    • Anuraag Sanghi said, on November 2, 2011 at 6:24 pm
      Any reason not to include 1998 nuclear tests and 1999 kargil?

      I have a feeling that history will see both the 1998 Nuclear Blasts and the Kargil ‘Wars’ were the cusp of a jaded FP2 – and the beginning of FPIII.

      The 1998 Nuclear Blasts were an essential bullet to bite – and for reasons of inertia, , prior Governments had dithered.

      It took a ‘natural’ foreign policy player like ABV to bite this simple bullet, take a deep breath, wait for the game to play out – and get on with preparing for a different day.

      Like the Tashkent meeting in itself was not important – but that it signalled the end of India’s experiments with UN and Super-power mediations.

      “over engagement with the west” as a key failure… you need to elaborate. first, “over engagement” – as in excessive engagement, I take, has a relative connotation – the question is versus whom? or do you mean that it was an obsession?

      India must focus on Central Asia, Africa, China, the SAARC region. That is the future of the world economy. Outlined in previous posts – and linked to this post.

      about the nuclear deal… I think the postscript has really surprised many analysts… it has demonstrated the continuity of foreign policy, despite power shifts, and the strength and maturity of Indian democracy to handle bullying…

      FPIII has seen many parties and prime minister come into play – and develop the approach.

      The Nuclear Deal signalled – along with all other developments, a maturing of Indian policy – where India was able to do without the P5 Veto umbrella – earlier available under the Soviet Union.

      Like all the three phases showed, these policy evolution continued inspite of change in leaderships and dispensations.

      I was myself rather surprised at the end of the post. The FP-One, FP2 and FP-III were rather solid at the core.

  2. x said, on November 3, 2011 at 1:15 am

    FP-III seems non-existent like current indian govt. If u consider Sharm et al.

    The relativ peace cud well b bcos- 1., Pak and its army of terrorists tied down after 9/11
    2. China wary after Ind’s Pokhran 98.

    Despite these Arunachal, Tibet, Nepal, Kashmir worrisome areas.

    Things may change once US leaves Afghanistan, and China Pak colludes freely.

    The next govt will hav its hands mor than full, wth external aggressors and internal jholawallahs and paper economy in doldrums.

    • Anuraag Sanghi said, on November 3, 2011 at 3:04 am

      FP-III seems non-existent

      You can see FPIII only if you try and see FP2. By itself the pattern is difficult to see.

      non-existent like current indian govt.

      I wish that this was true. Minimal or invisible Government would be such a good thing.

      If u consider Sharm et al. The relativ peace cud well b bcos- 1., Pak and its army of terrorists tied down after 9/11
      2. China wary after Ind’s Pokhran 98.

      The list of of ‘failures’ does not prove or disprove FPIII existence – but only the question of its effectiveness and execution.

      Despite these Arunachal, Tibet, Nepal, Kashmir worrisome areas.

      Truly – a matter of worry.

      Things may change once US leaves Afghanistan,

      Yes, you are right. Things may improve.

      China Pak colludes freely.

      China’s inaction after 1962, during the 1965 and 1971 wars may point to just lip sympathy. But America-Pakistan collusion is a reality.

      The next govt will hav its hands mor than full, wth external aggressors and internal jholawallahs and paper economy in doldrums.

      Alarmist – dont you think?

      • x said, on November 10, 2011 at 12:07 am

        >>>”Yes, you are right. Things may improve. ”

        optimistic – dont u think ?

        >>>>”The next govt will hav its hands mor than full, wth external aggressors and internal jholawallahs and paper economy in doldrums.
        Alarmist – dont you think?”

        Pakis’ existence is based on anti-India. Last 10 years they were made to fight against their collaborators- taliban, taking away their energies from fighting India. With US leaving Afghanistan, and respite from fighting their own brothers, Pak will focus on Kash as source to regroup themselves. The hardline elements of Pak that hav taken a hit in past few years will re-emerge during this time.

        unless there is change in ordinary Paki’s minds. which seems too far fetched.

  3. Vinod said, on November 3, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    I’m not so sure that there was a grand plan. All I can say is that somehow it happened – based on the necessity at that time. I feel a foreign policy without affective use of military power ends up useless. So, by that means, all we can do is think on the feet and do what is needed for that time. I think we are generally good at this. The achievements mentioned are merely by product of that i.e they didn’t plan that to happen when the so-called FP1 or FP2 or FP3 is happening.

    The “Greater Middle east” (a.k.a. a new version of “Scrabble for Africa”) is being played out now and Indians are clueless!!!

    • Anuraag Sanghi said, on November 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm
      I’m not so sure that there was a grand plan

      I agree – and have not implied that anywhere – and it cannot work like that.

      Everywhere in the world, these policies are evolutionary – and hence, sometimes, we need to make a mountain of a mole hill. Because some big monsters (like the British Empire; Pax Americana) started small.

      it happened – based on the necessity at that time.

      To my mind that is where it is scores a perfect 10. All policies have to be need-based.

      I feel a foreign policy without affective use of military power ends up useless.

      The ‘successes’ in 1965; 1971; Kargil are testimony to use of military power – when needed.

      The “Greater Middle east” (a.k.a. a new version of “Scrabble for Africa”) is being played out now and Indians are clueless!!!

      This is where you may get fooled.

      The Oil Game may collapse sooner than you imagine. I would not focus on the Middle East.

      • panduranghari said, on September 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm

        Let me pick it up here;

        You state-All policies have to be need based

        I claim- Yes most not all. Where is pre-emption? Only now we are finally building military, 1986 bofors set up back by 26 years. I wonder how far back will Thorium and Coal scams will set us? Our policy vis-a-vis Pak is incoherent. We have offered olive brach more than a few times, when can we stand up and MAKE small nations like Pak, Bang, SL to be less trigger happy.

        You claim -The Oil Game may collapse sooner than you imagine. I would not focus on the Middle East.

        Could you elaborate further? I have a very different take on this with global POV. Choosing Israel or ME is never a question that will come up EVER.

  4. Alkesh Desai said, on April 26, 2012 at 11:58 am

    The two achievements of India post 1948 : 1. Foreign Policy, and 2. Democracy. I wait earnestly for current senior bureaucrats (specially in foreign policy) to retire and write biographies. India is marvellously navigating the foreign policy waters, while the center of the earth is shifting east, close to home.

  5. admin said, on May 1, 2012 at 1:21 pm
  6. admin said, on May 10, 2012 at 1:43 pm
  7. Amit said, on May 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    Good synopsis and agree with the analysis. Dont agree with Rajiv Gandhi being a key persona in FP2- his persona has been given more leverage than its actual worth and contribution to Indian society by forces which are still milking the after effects of this so called persona


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,042 other followers

%d bloggers like this: