Tuesday, August 30, 2016

History of US-India Partnership

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's decision to skip the upcoming Non-Aligned Summit in Venezuela sends a powerful signal of his Hindu Nationalist government's growing commitment to India's partnership with the United States.

The latest logistics deal allowing the US forces to use Indian military bases is an indication of how the Americans intend to play the India card against China after the Cold War,  just as they played the China card against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The US-India deal is part of the  US “pivot” to Asia designed to check rising China. The U.S. Navy plans to deploy 60 percent of its surface ships in Asia in the near future. Instead of having to build facilities virtually from the ground up, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has the benefit of simple arrangements for the tremendous Indian facilities, according to Forbes magazine. This deal will accelerate the unfolding post Col-War realignment taking place in South Asia.

Massive Western Aid to India:

US-India ties are not new. India has been the number one recipient of US aid since 1947, according to the US government data.   The country India's first Prime Minister turned to for help during the 1962 China-India war was also the United States.



India has received $65.1 billion in US aid since its independence, making it the top recipient of American economic assistance. Pakistan, with its $44.4 billion, is at number 5 on the list.  US data also shows that Pakistan is not among top 10 for military or total economic and military aid.



More recently, the US aid to India has been replaced by massive US investment in the country that keeps its economy afloat. Massive western money inflows help India, with its huge trade deficits, pay for its imports and help maintain significant foreign exchange reserves. U.S. investment in India has jumped 500% in the past two years, according to the Wall Street Journal.

US Help in 1962 Indo-China War:

Indian Prime Minister Nehru sought significant US material aid and diplomatic help as the Indian troops were in full retreat in the 1962 China-India war.  A former US intelligence official Bruce Riedel in his book "JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA and the Sino-Indian War" notes that President John F. Kennedy played a “decisive role” in “forestalling a Pakistani attack” on India, even as Islamabad then was fully capable of going to war with India to wrest the disputed territory of Kashmir.

India's Pakistan Obsession:

The US efforts to partner with India are clearly aimed to check China's rise. However, India's actions and statements suggest that it expects to use this partnership to against Pakistan.

Anticipating questions about US-Pakistan ties during his India visit, here's what Carter told Council of Foreign Relation in Washington D.C. before leaving for New Delhi:

“I’m sure I’ll be asked about it in India, but I think the first thing one needs to say from an American policy point of view, these (India and Pakistan) are both respected partners and friends.”

"Pakistan is an important security partner", Carter added.

Pakistan-China Ties: 

While US is courting India to check China's rise, the China-Pakistan ties have now moved well beyond “higher than Himalayas and sweeter than honey,” as officials on both sides say. Chinese strategists openly talk of Pakistan as their nation’s only real ally. And China is investing heavily in Pakistan to build the Gwadar deep sea port as part of a much more ambitious and strategic China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that India is attempting sabotage.

The result is that Pakistan is drawing closer to China, a rising superpower, while its rival India is partnering with the United States, a superpower in relative decline on the world stage.

Let me conclude with a quote from from Brookings' Stephen Cohen on India-Pakistan power equation:

“One of the most important puzzles of India-Pakistan relations is not why the smaller Pakistan feels encircled and threatened, but why the larger India does. It would seem that India, seven times more populous than Pakistan and five times its size, and which defeated Pakistan in 1971, would feel more secure. This has not been the case and Pakistan remains deeply embedded in Indian thinking. There are historical, strategic, ideological, and domestic reasons why Pakistan remains the central obsession of much of the Indian strategic community, just as India remains Pakistan’s.”

Here's a video discussion on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sfliv7KJVM




http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x45590s_pak-leaders-in-london-us-india-defense-deals-trump-vs-gop_news



Pak Leaders in London; US-India Defense Deals... by ViewpointFromOverseas

https://vimeo.com/163190180


Pak Leaders in London; US-India Defense Deals; Trump vs GOP from Ikolachi on Vimeo.



Related Links:

Haq's Musings

India's Pakistan Obsession

Can India Survive Without Wester Money?

India's Superpower Delusion: Modi's Policy Blunders

Does Pakistan Really Need F-16s to Fight Terror? 

Pakistan-Russia-China vs India-Japan-US?

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Gwadar: Hong Kong West for China?

Indian Agent Kulbhushan Yadav's Confession

43 comments:

Iqbal Singh said...

In this logistics agreement, what questions regarding Pakistan were asked by the Indian Minister officially? I know the media asked some questions too but I hope you are not referring to those.

Riaz Haq said...

Singh: "what questions regarding Pakistan were asked by the Indian Minister officially?"

Manohar Parrikar is a Pakistan-bashing Muslim-hating Hindu Nationalist to the core.

Pakistan is always on Parrikar's mind, regardless of any deals or occasions, including signing the US-India partnership in Washington DC.

He recently compared Pakistan with hell, saying going to Pakistan is like going to hell.

Addressing a joint news conference with US defence secretary Ashton Carter at the Pentagon, Parrikar alleged that “forces from across the border” are trying to spread violence in the Valley. “As far as Kashmir is concerned, I think the government of India has been very proactive. A few small percentage is holding the majority to ransom,” he said.

Anonymous said...

FACT SHEET: The United States and Pakistan – a Strong and Enduring Relationship

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama hosted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and First Lady Kalsoom Nawaz Sharif at the White House on October 22, 2015. Their visit reinforced the commitment of both leaders to an enduring U.S.-Pakistan partnership, a prosperous Pakistan, and a more stable region. The two leaders expressed their conviction that a resilient U.S.-Pakistan partnership is vital to regional and global security and reaffirmed their commitment to address evolving challenges in South Asia and beyond. Since enactment of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (“Kerry-Lugar-Berman” or “KLB”), the United States has committed $5 billion in civilian assistance to Pakistan and over $1 billion in emergency humanitarian response to disasters and conflict, including for 2010 flood relief. Security assistance has also strengthened cooperation on key national security interests. Building on KLB, the leaders committed to fostering a deeper, stronger, more multi-dimensional partnership to cooperatively tackle the global challenges of the 21st century. The leaders highlighted the following areas of U.S. cooperation:

Energy and Economic Growth

Energy: Since 2009, the U.S. Government helped add approximately 1,700 megawatts (MW) of electricity to Pakistan’s grid system, benefitting nearly 19 million Pakistanis. U.S. assistance funded the construction and rehabilitation of a number of hydropower dams and thermal power plants. U.S. assistance has also helped Pakistan improve governance and management systems, and increase revenue collection – by over $200 million in 2015– as well as provide commercial opportunities for U.S. businesses. Efforts also include Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) debt financing and political risk insurance that support U.S. investments in Pakistan. Additionally, U.S. business played an important role in facilitating Pakistan’s access to international liquefied natural gas (LNG) markets earlier this year. The new U.S.-Pakistan Clean Energy Partnership (USCEP) will help the private sector add at least 3,000 MW of clean power generation infrastructure to Pakistan’s national electricity system over the next five years.

Bilateral Trade and Investment: The United States and Pakistan will expand cooperation on the 2013 Joint Action Plan on Trade and Investment. The United States remains Pakistan’s largest bilateral export market and a significant source of foreign direct investment. In March 2015, during U.S.-Pakistan Economic Partnership Week, the first U.S.-Pakistan Business Opportunities Conference held in Islamabad was headlined by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Pakistani Finance Minister Ishaq Dar. To promote private investment, OPIC has facilitated $800 million in financing and insurance for projects in Pakistan. Trade and investment assistance is provided under the bilateral Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

Regional Connectivity

Private Sector Financing and Entrepreneurship

Agriculture

Support in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)

Women’s Economic Advancement

Education, Health, and Civil Society Cooperation

People-to-People Exchanges

Higher Education

Science and Technology Agreement

University Partnerships

University Governance

Basic Education

Let Girls Learn

English Language Programs

Civil Society and Democratic Institutions

Health Cooperation

Countering Evolving Threats

Civilian Law Enforcement and Rule of Law

Security Assistance

Military Training and Exchanges

Countering Violent Extremism

Improvised Explosive Devices

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/22/fact-sheet-united-states-and-pakistan-%E2%80%93-strong-and-enduring-relationship

NBRX said...

What is not clear from your write up is the military aid to Pakistan since 1947. Not counting that, India being six times the size has received only 1.5 times the economic aid to Pakistan. $62b versus $44b

Zhong Lee, Baltimore said...

China is not stupid. India is a big market and exports to India will reach $ 80 billion in 2016. China is very pro business and we like to be friends and do trade then discuss problems later. That is the Chinese culture.

Riaz Haq said...

NBRX: "What is not clear from your write up is the military aid to Pakistan since 1947. Not counting that, India being six times the size has received only 1.5 times the economic aid to Pakistan. $62b versus $44b"

The point of the post is to debunk the myth that US was hostile to India during the Cold War.

US not only gave aid but so much aid to India to make it the largest recipient.

Whatever military aid US gave Pakistan is not enough to put Pakistan among the top ten recipients of US military aid, as obvious from the graphic.

As India was losing its territory to China fast and suffering heavy casualty, Nehru in a letter to Kennedy in November 1962 said India needed “air transport and jet fighters to stem the Chinese tide of aggression.”
“A lot more effort, both from us and from our friends will be required.” Nehru wrote another letter to Kennedy in quick succession, Riedel writes.
This letter written by Nehru in a state of panicky was hand delivered by the then Indian Ambassador to the US B K
Nehru to Kennedy on November 19.
“Nehru was thus asking Kennedy to join the war against China by partnering in an air war to defeat the PLA (Peoples Liberation Army of China). It was a momentous request that the Indian Prime Minister was making. Just a decade after American forces had reached a ceasefire with the Chinese Community Forces in Korea, India was asking JFK to join a new war against Community China,” Riedel wrote in his book.

In the letter, Nehru asked for 12 squadrons of US air forces, Riedel told the Washington audience during the preview of the book at an event organised by the Brookings Institute – a top American think-tank – yesterday.
“A minimum of 12 squadrons of supersonic all weather fighters are essential. We have no modern radar cover in the country. The United States Air Force personnel will have to man these fighters and radar installations while our personnel are being trained,” Nehru wrote in the letter, which has been quoted by Riedel in the book.
In addition, Nehru also requested “two squadron of B-47 Bombers” to strike in Tibet, the author says quoting the letter.
In the letter, Nehru assured Kennedy that these bombers would not be used against Pakistan, but only for “resistance against the Chinese”.
The stakes were “not merely the survival of India”, Nehru told Kennedy “but the survival of free and independent Governments in the whole of this subcontinent or in Asia”.
Riedel said in the second letter Nehru was, in fact, asking Kennedy for some 350 combat aircraft and crews: 12 squadrons of fighter aircraft and crews: 12 squadron of fighter aircraft with 24 jets in each and two bomber
squadrons.
“At least 10,000 personnel would be needed to staff and operate jets, provide radar support and conduct logistical support for the operation,” Riedel said adding this was a substantial forces, large enough to make it a numbered air force in the American order of battle.
The British Prime Minister received a similar letter from Nehru, the American scholar writes. Referring to the subsequent instructions passed by Kennedy to his administration, Riedel described them as the one that of a president preparing for war.
But before the US would take further steps, China announced unilateral ceasefire. After making major advances and being in a strong position to annex entire of North East and reach as far as Kolkata, the Chinese leadership surprised the world by announcing a unilateral ceasefire fearing that both Britain and the United State were getting ready to provide material support to India in the war.
“Of course, we will never know what the specifics of American assistance to India would have been if the war continues,” he wrote in the book set to be officially released in the first week of November.
“We can be reasonably certain that America, India and probably Great Britain would have been at war together with China,” Riedel concludes.


http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jawaharlal-nehru-sought-us-assistance-during-1962-indo-china-war/

Riaz Haq said...

ZL: "China is very pro business and we like to be friends and do trade then discuss problems later. That is the Chinese culture."

China also has a long history of building a wall when its national security is threatened....not just any wall, but The Great Wall.


The US-India deal allows US to use Indian military bases to threaten Chinese interests, particularly its sea lanes in South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

NO matter how large a market any country might be, the Chinese national security is a much bigger concern for Beijing.

Ahmed F. said...

How about US military aid to India versus Pakistan? What are the dollars involved?

In terms of economic aid, India's larger size has to be factored in.

And if your overall thesis is correct, then why has Pakistan clung to the US for so long? It could find no one else? It could not stand on its own two feet? And why did it think that the US would come to its aid during the wars of 1965 and 1971?

Everything changed after India's China War in 1962, in terms of US interest in India versus Pakistan.

The naïveté in Rawalpindi was astounding. The generals continued to live in denial.

Now they are equally excited about China.

Along the way they were excited about the Saudi's.

Riaz Haq said...

Ahmad F: "How about US military aid to India versus Pakistan? What are the dollars involved? "

You are asking the wrong wrong question.

India's main arms supplier was the Soviet Union.

So the right question is whether the Soviet military aid to India made India the top recipient of Soviet military aid. And did the Soviet mil aid to India dwarf US mil aid to Pakistan?

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/JCWS_a_00006

http://www.bannedthought.net/India/CPI(ML)-Orig/Liberation/1967-Nov/SovietAidToIndia-671100.pdf


US military aid to Pakistan is often played up by liberals like you but the fact is that Pakistan does not figure even in the top 10 US military aid recipients.

Also read my last comment here about Riedel's book on Nehru's massive aid request to Kennedy in 1962.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/jawaharlal-nehru-sought-us-assistance-during-1962-indo-china-war/

Jon said...

Learning from history, as an American, in the post Cold War post 9/11 era, India is a better long term partner even without South China Sea issues

r_sundar said...

India and the US are natural allies. You don't need oil or strategic locations etched etc. It is only getting cemented even more, with the dynamic Indian American diaspora. We will see an Indian American president within the next 20 years.

Riaz Haq said...

sundar: "India and the US are natural allies."

How?

US elected a black president in 2008 and 2012. In 2014, India elected Modi, described as the equivalent of KKK wizard by pro-India Christine Fair. I'd say the electorates in the two countries are diametrically opposed.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2015/03/dr-christine-fair-compares-indias-bjp.html

Riaz Haq said...

Jon: "India is a better long term partner even without South China Sea issues"


There's no such thing as "better long term partner" for US policymakers.

As Henry Kissinger put it, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

http://www.riazhaq.com/2015/04/post-cold-war-line-up-pakistan-china.html

NBRX said...

As Henry Kissinger put it, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

That policy of yesteryears has become obsolete. I don't know why so many are still stuck in the Cold War mindset. Policy is now driven more by economics, trade and free-world democratic ideals.

r_sundar said...

Who cares what Christine or whoever has to say....unlike the toothless leaders of the past India finally has a true leader!
Well Henry Kissinger is wrong. No matter what Israel does, US will be its ally. And so will become India.

Anonymous said...

@r_sundar

Well people like Christine and Kissinger advise people that shape US foreign policy,unlike a random internet crybaby like you that amounts to nothing.

r_sundar said...

Me a random cry baby??
Just look at your self in the mirror. Don't even have the guts to reveal your identity, and remaining anaonymous. Looser.

Riaz Haq said...

#Pakistan in Talks With #Russia to Purchase Su-35 fighter Jets for #PAF http://sputniknews.com/military/20160905/1044975853/pakistan-russia-ambassador-su35.html … via @SputnikInt

Pakistan Air Force Chief of Staff had fruitful talks in Moscow in July on purchasing of Russian Su-35 fighter jets.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Chief of Air Staff of the Pakistan Air Force Sohail Aman had "fruitful talks" in Moscow in July on purchasing of Russian Su-35 (NATO reporting name: Flanker-E) fighter jets, Pakistani Ambassador to Russia Qazi Khalilullah told Sputnik. "Chief of Air Staff Marshal Sohail Aman had fruitful talks with the Russian partners on this issue in July," Khalilullah said answering a question on whether Islamabad could purchase the Su-35 aircraft. According to the official, the Pakistani Air Force "is considering different options of deepening cooperation with Russia."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160905/1044975853/pakistan-russia-ambassador-su35.html

Anonymous said...

Riazhaq commented 'The US-India deal allows US to use Indian military bases to threaten Chinese interests, particularly its sea lanes in South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. '

This makes no sense. If the US wants to increase presence in South China sea then it can use the large bases it already has in Japan, South Korea & Philippines.

The US also has a very large base in the middle of the Indian Ocean called Diego Garcia. So India is not of much use there either.

As for the Arabian sea, the US already has large bases in the GCC countries and does not need India.

So what is this new arrangement going to do for the US?

As far as I can see, the only Indian base of value to the US is the Andaman & Nicobar naval station because the Malacca strait is where the US would like to create a new choke-point for China.

Apart from this, the US does not need anything from India and India has nothing of value to offer the US in terms of strategic basing rights.

Anonymous said...

....The Americans intend to play the India card against China after the Cold War, just as they played the China card against the Soviet Union during the Cold War......

.......The result is that Pakistan is drawing closer to China, a rising superpower, while its rival India is partnering with the United States, a superpower in relative decline on the world stage..........

This was the Cold war arrangement:
A) The US used China to balance against the USSR.
B) The USSR used India to balance against China.

So what is the new arrangement?
A) The US will use India to balance against China
B) China will use Pakistan to balance against India.

Comparing the two, we can see the following:
1) The US remains the same.
2) China is the new USSR.
3) India is the new China.
4) Pakistan is the new India.

Is this something for us to celebrate? Being the new India? Are you serious?

Wasn't everybody saying in the 60s & 70s that the USSR was the "rising superpower" while the US was "a superpower in relative decline"? How did that turn out?

Riaz Haq said...

Anon: "Wasn't everybody saying in the 60s & 70s that the USSR was the "rising superpower" while the US was "a superpower in relative decline"? How did that turn out?"

China and Soviet Union are fundamentally very different.

1. Soviet Union's economy was always very small compared to the US economy. Chinese economy is the 2nd largest today and will soon surpass the US economy to claim #1 spot.

2. Soviet Union was economically isolated by the West. It had very little trade. China's trade volume now exceeds that of the United States.

3. China is now the world's biggest investor and the biggest lender in the world, including the West.

4. China is setting up international institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and many of the top US allies have joined it as a member over US objections.

5. Chinese Yuan is now recognized by the IMF as an international reserve currency.

Riaz Haq said...

BOOK EXCERPT "The Nation Declassified"
Five declassified secrets reveal India’s moves with global superpowers during the Cold War
A new book examines files no longer classified as top secret.


The Nation Declassified reveals the secret history of how India’s Prime Ministers, their closest advisers, diplomats, intelligence agencies and military led the nation through the transformation of world order in the cold war era. Uncovering thousands of pages of top secret declassified documentation from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Department of Atomic Energy, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Cabinet Secretariat R&AW Reports, supplemented with extensive interviews, the book provides a glimpse of the functioning of the Indian state in protecting its interests during the Cold War.

President Kennedy, US and Kashmir
TT Krishnamachari, Minister in the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet met with President Kennedy after 1962 Sino-Indian conflict. TTK conveyed to JFK that India cannot take ad-hoc decision on Kashmir as this would not be acceptable to the Indian people. TTK also states that in talks with Ayub prior to the 1962 conflict, in course of the third round “we were prepared to alter the international boundary”. (Tape, 1963) He added that “personally, I am prepared to go even further”. (Tape, 1963)

In 1964, Ambassador Chester Bowles XE "Chester Bowles" met TN Kaul in Moscow XE "Moscow" and spoke of his visit to Kashmir and placed a “proposal” to the Indian Envoy on Kashmir presumably, as a result of the US Envoy’s discussion with Sheikh Abdullah. According to Bowles, Sheikh Abdullah’s participation in elections of 1965 XE "1965" on basis of Kashmir’s accession to India could be secured if India provided special status to the Valley. TN Kaul did not comment or respond to the proposal. (MEA, India-Pakistan-USA Relations, 1963.)

Nehru-Ayub Khan Talks
PM Nehru wrote in a “Note” from Cabinet Secretariat dated 21 October 1960 when President Ayub told him that he “wanted to talk to me about Kashmir”. (Krishnamachari.) Both heads of state agreed to speak privately while the advisors were asked to wait outside. Ayub put to Nehru the question of reaching a settlement between him and Nehru while both were still holding their positions because “a settlement might become much more difficult later on”. (Krishnamachari.)

Nehru stressed on a realistic approach. He put forward his approach as “accepting the position as it was” with partial adjustments. Ayub “went on repeating” that the cease fire was an “ad-hoc” position brought on by military conflict. (Krishnamachari.) In regard to Kashmir, the MEA XE "MEA" “Kashmir Unit” has a copy of a draft agreement of some sort based on distribution of areas with territory above Chenab and Chandar-Bhaga excluding Kashmir Valley to be with Pakistan XE "Pakistan" ; Kashmir Valley including Kargil as semi-independent areas with Joint administration by India XE "India" and Pakistan for five years; at the end of five years there may be no plebiscite if there is mutual consent between India and Pakistan. It is unclear as to what the source point of this draft is.

Chinese Air Threat after 1962
The report by Mountbatten gives a stark picture of overwhelming Chinese offensive capability in softening India before any negotiations. The talks between Prime Minister and Mountbatten in 1963 reveal that there was an assessment that Chinese MIG-19s could air raid on an “axis nearer to Delhi with a view to causing uneasiness in the capital and bringing pressure on the Government to negotiate on Chinese terms”. (Krishnamachari, Subject File 27, 1963.)


http://scroll.in/article/819603/five-declassified-secrets-reveal-indias-moves-with-global-superpowers-during-the-cold-war

Riaz Haq said...

BOOK EXCERPT "The Nation Declassified"
Five declassified secrets reveal India’s moves with global superpowers during the Cold War
A new book examines files no longer classified as top secret.


Emergency and Cold War
Both US and USSR extended support and understanding to Indira Gandhi during the Emergency period. USSR did so because their leadership had developed a sort of personal bond with her and her advisers as well as her direction of policy whereas US could do very little and also India did not quite interest them in this decade of détente as much as it had during 1962-63 when cold war was still in the phase of direct confrontation between the two superpowers.

In talks with Kissinger XE "Kissinger" , the “Emergency” was explained by Indian officials as aimed at extra constitutional challenge “by a motley group of reactionary elements belonging to extreme left and right including communal and sectarian elements”. (MEA, FM-US visit, 1976.) State Department XE "State Department" Officials even acknowledged that economic growth had been good even after announcement of Emergency.

Records of discussions tell us of a meeting between DP Dhar XE "DP Dhar" and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko XE "Gromyko" at Moscow XE "Moscow" on 10 February 1975. (MEA, Indo Soviet Relations, 1975.) DP Dhar XE "Dhar" explained internal politics in India XE "India" wherein “neo-fascist and reactionary groups” were taking political advantage of the economic situation. All right wing strands had joined the Jayaprakash Narayan movement. He said that the PM was confident about the elections which were to be held in a year’s time.

Discussions between Kewal Singh XE "Kewal Singh" and Firyubin on November 25 touched upon the domestic situation in India on the declaration of Emergency, XE "Emergency" which included detaining of “some leaders indulging in anti-patriotic activities”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation, 1975.) According to the brief, the Soviets were given the explanation that Emergency had “reinvigorated national discipline, enthusiasm and devotion to duty”. (MEA, 1975.) It had also discredited and exposed the “extreme right and extreme left”.

The Foreign Secretary stated that the Emergency had prevented a situation such as that in Bangladesh XE "Bangladesh" from coming about in India. The Government had used Emergency measures to consolidate and strengthen the socialist policies within the 20-point economic agenda. Kewal Singh described the Emergency as “a very courageous decision by the Prime Minister XE "Prime Minister" ”. (MEA, 1975.)

Firyubin conveyed “whole-hearted support” to the Indian Government and “the real meaning of democracy means that government should work for the interest of the people…that kind of democracy was real democracy”. Firyubin also added that “we highly appreciate her courage”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation, 1975.) In the garb of democracy, leaders were engaging in undemocratic activities and undermining democracy and “the (Emergency) measures taken by your Prime Minister are a bright chapter in the history XE "history" of India”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation.) He described the Jana Sangh as a fascist group.

PM Morarji Desai’s visit to the Soviet Union
In his meeting with LI Brezhnev XE "Brezhnev" at the Kremlin on June 12, 1979, Morarji Desai began with China XE "China" , and criticised Nehru XE "Nehru" as having “made a mistake of recognising in 1950 Chinese suzerainty over Tibet”. (Record of Discussions, 1979.) Brezhnev thought that India XE "India" must be prepared defensively as “there may be an unpleasant surprise in store”. (Record of Discussions, 1979.)



http://scroll.in/article/819603/five-declassified-secrets-reveal-indias-moves-with-global-superpowers-during-the-cold-war

Riaz Haq said...

BOOK EXCERPT "The Nation Declassified"
Five declassified secrets reveal India’s moves with global superpowers during the Cold War
A new book examines files no longer classified as top secret.


Chinese Air Threat after 1962
The report by Mountbatten gives a stark picture of overwhelming Chinese offensive capability in softening India before any negotiations. The talks between Prime Minister and Mountbatten in 1963 reveal that there was an assessment that Chinese MIG-19s could air raid on an “axis nearer to Delhi with a view to causing uneasiness in the capital and bringing pressure on the Government to negotiate on Chinese terms”. (Krishnamachari, Subject File 27, 1963.)

In such an “axis attack” the Chinese would use as many as 180 jet bombers XE "bombers" , 50 light bombers, 60 piston light with a total of 150 sorties a day. Jet light bombers could undertake tactical attack NEFA XE "NEFA" and Ladakh-Kashmir XE "Kashmir" -Jammu areas while “by day launch strategic jet light bombers against cities in Northern India including Calcutta XE "Calcutta" ”. (Krishnamachari, Subject File 27, 1963.)

Emergency and Cold War
Both US and USSR extended support and understanding to Indira Gandhi during the Emergency period. USSR did so because their leadership had developed a sort of personal bond with her and her advisers as well as her direction of policy whereas US could do very little and also India did not quite interest them in this decade of détente as much as it had during 1962-63 when cold war was still in the phase of direct confrontation between the two superpowers.

In talks with Kissinger XE "Kissinger" , the “Emergency” was explained by Indian officials as aimed at extra constitutional challenge “by a motley group of reactionary elements belonging to extreme left and right including communal and sectarian elements”. (MEA, FM-US visit, 1976.) State Department XE "State Department" Officials even acknowledged that economic growth had been good even after announcement of Emergency.

Records of discussions tell us of a meeting between DP Dhar XE "DP Dhar" and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko XE "Gromyko" at Moscow XE "Moscow" on 10 February 1975. (MEA, Indo Soviet Relations, 1975.) DP Dhar XE "Dhar" explained internal politics in India XE "India" wherein “neo-fascist and reactionary groups” were taking political advantage of the economic situation. All right wing strands had joined the Jayaprakash Narayan movement. He said that the PM was confident about the elections which were to be held in a year’s time.

Discussions between Kewal Singh XE "Kewal Singh" and Firyubin on November 25 touched upon the domestic situation in India on the declaration of Emergency, XE "Emergency" which included detaining of “some leaders indulging in anti-patriotic activities”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation, 1975.) According to the brief, the Soviets were given the explanation that Emergency had “reinvigorated national discipline, enthusiasm and devotion to duty”. (MEA, 1975.) It had also discredited and exposed the “extreme right and extreme left”.



http://scroll.in/article/819603/five-declassified-secrets-reveal-indias-moves-with-global-superpowers-during-the-cold-war

Riaz Haq said...

BOOK EXCERPT "The Nation Declassified"
Five declassified secrets reveal India’s moves with global superpowers during the Cold War
A new book examines files no longer classified as top secret.


Discussions between Kewal Singh XE "Kewal Singh" and Firyubin on November 25 touched upon the domestic situation in India on the declaration of Emergency, XE "Emergency" which included detaining of “some leaders indulging in anti-patriotic activities”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation, 1975.) According to the brief, the Soviets were given the explanation that Emergency had “reinvigorated national discipline, enthusiasm and devotion to duty”. (MEA, 1975.) It had also discredited and exposed the “extreme right and extreme left”.

The Foreign Secretary stated that the Emergency had prevented a situation such as that in Bangladesh XE "Bangladesh" from coming about in India. The Government had used Emergency measures to consolidate and strengthen the socialist policies within the 20-point economic agenda. Kewal Singh described the Emergency as “a very courageous decision by the Prime Minister XE "Prime Minister" ”. (MEA, 1975.)

Firyubin conveyed “whole-hearted support” to the Indian Government and “the real meaning of democracy means that government should work for the interest of the people…that kind of democracy was real democracy”. Firyubin also added that “we highly appreciate her courage”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation, 1975.) In the garb of democracy, leaders were engaging in undemocratic activities and undermining democracy and “the (Emergency) measures taken by your Prime Minister are a bright chapter in the history XE "history" of India”. (MEA, Indo-Soviet Consultation.) He described the Jana Sangh as a fascist group.

PM Morarji Desai’s visit to the Soviet Union
In his meeting with LI Brezhnev XE "Brezhnev" at the Kremlin on June 12, 1979, Morarji Desai began with China XE "China" , and criticised Nehru XE "Nehru" as having “made a mistake of recognising in 1950 Chinese suzerainty over Tibet”. (Record of Discussions, 1979.) Brezhnev thought that India XE "India" must be prepared defensively as “there may be an unpleasant surprise in store”. (Record of Discussions, 1979.)

Brezhnev conveyed to Desai that he had discussed India’s defence requirements XE "defense requirements" with Ustinov XE "Ustinov" (Soviet Minister of Defence) and recommended that 2 billion rouble worth of equipment be transferred to India. Desai brought up the issue of Pakistan XE "Pakistan" “trying to make nuclear XE "nuclear" weapons and carry out nuclear explosions” and he had raised this matter with the Pakistan President, who for his part denied any such plan. (Record of Discussions, 1979.)



http://scroll.in/article/819603/five-declassified-secrets-reveal-indias-moves-with-global-superpowers-during-the-cold-war

Riaz Haq said...


BOOK EXCERPT "The Nation Declassified"
Five declassified secrets reveal India’s moves with global superpowers during the Cold War
A new book examines files no longer classified as top secret.


At this point, Samoteikin spoke of the USSR XE "USSR" having “unconfirmed reports that they (Pakistan) are trying to build a uranium XE "uranium" enrichment XE "enrichment" plant but we have no report to say that they are attempting to have any bomb XE "bomb" ”. (Record of Discussions, 1979.) In response to the Indian PM’s talking about troubles in Iran XE "Iran" and fanatical elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan XE "Afghanistan" , Brezhnev said “the devil alone knows”. (Record of Discussions, 1979.)

The same day Desai held talks with Prime Minister XE "Prime Minister" AN Kosygin XE "Kosygin" at the Hall of Receptions. Desai placed the request for 200 tons of heavy water XE "heavy water" for RAPP XE "RAPP" . Kosygin replied that “I can immediately say yes….we will satisfy your request.” (Record of Discussions, 1979.) Kosygin remarked that these 200 tons requirement were in addition to the 205 tons already supplied to India XE "India" by the Soviet Union XE "Soviet Union" . Kosygin said that Soviet Union could supply 80 tons in 1980 and 50-60 tons every year thereafter. He informed Desai that he had accepted the Indian request for Soviet assistance in uranium XE "uranium" exploration, and a Soviet team was had already been selected for visiting India. Mention was also made of the Soviet rocket that had been used to launch Indian satellite XE "satellite" in June 1979.

http://scroll.in/article/819603/five-declassified-secrets-reveal-indias-moves-with-global-superpowers-during-the-cold-war

Riaz Haq said...

Aid wars: U.S.-Soviet competition in India
Dhruva Jaishankar and Shruti GodboleThursday, March 1, 2018

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/03/01/aid-wars-u-s-soviet-competition-in-india/

just as development aid had unexpected and significant consequences for India, Engerman argues that the aid policies of the United States and Soviet Union were both primarily defined by the India experience. Essentially both Washington and Moscow learned about the politics and economics of development aid – the potential and the pitfalls – from the process of dealing with India.

This was reflected in the changing nature of U.S. aid to India. U.S. assistance began with community development programs in the early 1950s, when technical assistance trainers were sent to Indian villages.

India was the largest recipient of U.S. community development assistance during this time. But while big on rhetoric and goodwill, it was accompanied by relatively little financial assistance (just 6 cents per beneficiary per year).

In the early 1960s, India asked the Kennedy Administration for funds that were unlinked to projects in order to finance imports, so called “free money.” But instead, as the Cold War heated up, aid became increasingly linked to outcomes and was subject to narrower U.S. conditions, such as on family planning, food aid, and reduced Indian criticism of the Vietnam War.

In other words, project aid initially meant to develop the Indian economy gradually evolved to programme aid whose express purpose was to shape Indian policy. The changing nature of U.S. assistance increased donor leverage and therefore presented new challenges to the Indian policy-making community. Among other consequences, it helped ensure that very little technological transfer took place.

Similarly, the Soviet approach to economic cooperation in the developing world began with India in the 1950s and was largely driven by Indian conditions. Over time, it eventually assumed a very different character from U.S. aid.

During the visit of Soviet leader Nikolai Khrushchev to India, the U.S.S.R. pulled off something of a coup with an agreement to support a steel plant in Bhilai in Madhya Pradesh. This was the first plan of Soviet assistance outside the Communist Bloc, and represented a move away from the relative economic isolationism of the Stalin years.

Ironically, India had sought Japanese and West German assistance before turning to the Soviets, and even the Soviet project at Bhilai benefited from components and services provided by Western companies.

The shock of the Bhilai announcement forced the United States to increase its support for India, but the Soviet Union soon ran into problems as its own economic growth began to slow. Gradually, Moscow discovered that it had an advantage over the United States in being more open to industrial licensing, which meant that military assistance to India came to predominate.

This was accelerated by the U.S. cut-off of military support during the 1965 India-Pakistan War. Yet, over time, as the technological gap between the United States and Soviet Union widened, India found that the over-dependence on Soviet military assistance put it at a disadvantage.

Riaz Haq said...

#America's #Indo-#Pacific strategy costs #India development opportunity - Global Times. #China #BRI #CPEC #Trump #2Plus2 #Pakistan

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1109081.shtml

India is eager for development, but the US is not the one that can provide New Delhi with the atmosphere that its development needs. The decision of the US administration to postpone the US-India "2+2 dialogue", scheduled for July 6, is a disappointment to India, and the second such time that this supposedly important dialogue between the two countries' foreign and defense ministers has been postponed.

Indian media speculated that the latest postponement was due to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's visit to North Korea to discuss denuclearization plans. Divergences over other issues between the US and India were also cited as a possible reason.

The US has been generous about its fondness for India in rhetoric. But whether the fondness is what Indians need the most, or if the value is worth the price, remains undetermined.

Of course, the United States and India do have common interests. Otherwise, there would be no Indo-Pacific strategy at all. However, any benefits from this strategy may be greatly outweighed by the costs to India.

The subtext of this strategy of the United States is that it hopes India can play an essential role in balancing the rise of China. Does India really want to play the role that the US expects? Don't forget that this strategy has a strong military stance against China. At the very least, it is re-dividing Asia-Pacific with Cold War thinking.

It is understandable that India wants to keep its sphere of influence as an emerging power, but this shouldn't come at the cost of its domestic development. Indulging in the game of military balance will only consume India's strength.

India needs to be aware that without paying heed to Indian concerns, the US' strategy is hampering, not aiding, India's domestic development. Rather than falling victim to the US' purpose of containing China's rise, it is better for India to look to China for ways of self-development. What India can learn from China is that its ability to stand on its own feet will determine its place in Asia and the world.

India is currently at a critical juncture in its development. Can India's economy achieve greater development in the next five to 10 years? The number one challenge is how India can lay the foundation for manufacturing and infrastructure to fully enter the global production chain.

From this perspective, it is China, not the United States, that can provide more support and knowledge to India. If India follows the US strategy step by step, it will lose future opportunities to cooperate with China and many other neighboring countries. India should be able to understand the situation.

Riaz Haq said...

#India Folds Under #Trump's Pressure, Halts #Iranian #Oil Imports | India’s oil ministry has asked refiners to prepare for a ‘drastic reduction or zero’ imports of Iranian oil from November 2018 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/India-Folds-Under-Pressure-Halts-Iranian-Oil-Imports.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tw_repost … #oilprice

In more dour news for Iran, India (the world’s fourth largest oil importer) is planning to cut oil imports from the embattled OPEC member. India’s oil ministry has asked refiners to prepare for a ‘drastic reduction or zero’ imports of Iranian oil from November, Reuters said on Thursday, citing two industry sources.

The news comes as Tehran remains defiant over impending U.S. sanctions renewal and just days after India indicated it would push back against pressure from Washington to halt Iranian oil imports, stating that it did not recognize sanctions the U.S. has threatened to impose on countries that continue to buy Iranian oil after November 4.

"India does not recognize unilateral sanctions, but only sanctions by the United Nations," Sunjay Sudhir, joint secretary for international cooperation at India's petroleum ministry, told CNN earlier when asked whether India would reduce oil imports from Iran. After China, India is the largest buyer of Iranian crude oil.

President Trump said on Tuesday that the U.S. would level sanctions on countries that not did not cut Iranian oil imports.

Though India made an initial defiant stand, it simply can’t afford to alienate Washington since it has to safeguard its exposure to the U.S. financial system, a powerful tool that the U.S. can wield as it pleases since the dollar is the world’s reserve currency. This allows Washington to level crippling sanctions on a wide range of countries all the way from Russia to Venezuela to Iran and anybody else that any sitting U.S. president sees fit to punish.

This economic weapon is also why Beijing is working feverishly to supplement or replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. In September, John Hardy, the head of FX strategy at Saxo Bank said China was “eyeing the benefits of having its own currency play a larger role and to supplant the USD's role in global trade. The initial focus is on the global oil trade, where it has announced the intention of buying oil in yuan and allowing trade partners to settle that yuan in gold." He added that settling in gold is a clever move by Beijing as it provides oil-exporting countries with a greater degree of comfort.

Riaz Haq said...

#India’s foreign policy is up a creek without a paddle, especially in its #SouthAsia neighborhood due to reckless adventurism. #Modi has abandoned non-aligned movement and antagonized #China and #Russia in its pursuit of alliance with #America, #Trump.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/is-indias-foreign-policy-adrift/article24343945.ece

The BJP government’s denseness has ended up antagonising both Russia and China. Nothing typified this more than Russia holding antiterror exercises with Pakistan in DRUZBA-2017. Similarly, rather than taking a nuanced position, the ill-conceived boycott of the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in 2017 invited the wrath of China via the Doklam standoff. Notwithstanding government claims, the withdrawal from Doklam was sequential — India first, then China — rather than simultaneous. The sequel was that the Prime Minister had to travel to Wuhan and Sochi to effectively pay ‘court’ to Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, respectively.

The worst casualty has, however, been India’s neighbourhood. In the past four years, the BJP government has swung from the sublime to the ridiculous on Pakistan, blockaded Nepal for not declaring itself as a Hindu Rashtra, lost Sri Lanka to the Chinese, been belittled by the Maldives and even Seychelles. Europe, Africa, Latin and South America have fallen off the map.

The list is interminable. The BJP government’s denseness has ended up antagonising both Russia and China. Nothing typified this more than Russia holding antiterror exercises with Pakistan in DRUZBA-2017. Similarly, rather than taking a nuanced position, the ill-conceived boycott of the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing in 2017 invited the wrath of China via the Doklam standoff. Notwithstanding government claims, the withdrawal from Doklam was sequential — India first, then China — rather than simultaneous. The sequel was that the Prime Minister had to travel to Wuhan and Sochi to effectively pay ‘court’ to Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, respectively.

The worst casualty has, however, been India’s neighbourhood. In the past four years, the BJP government has swung from the sublime to the ridiculous on Pakistan, blockaded Nepal for not declaring itself as a Hindu Rashtra, lost Sri Lanka to the Chinese, been belittled by the Maldives and even Seychelles. Europe, Africa, Latin and South America have fallen off the map.

The list is interminable. India’s foreign policy is up a creek without a paddle.

Riaz Haq said...

#Maldives jabs #India again, signs power deal with #Pakistan http://toi.in/nVbwea/a24gk via @timesofindia


Riaz Haq said...

#Pompeo in #Delhi: #Trade, #Russia #S400 anti-missile deal, #Huawei #China #5G, #USICRF #US #ReligiousFreedom report other sticky issues on plate during Pompeo-Jaishankar in #India talks. #Trump #Modi https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/trade-s-400-iran-oil-to-top-pompeo-jaishankar-talks/article28134866.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-hindu-explains-the-state-of-indo-us-ties-ahead-of-mike-pompeos-visit/article28135832.ece

U.S. Secretary of State will meet Modi before the latter leaves for Osaka
India will once again press its case for a waiver of United States’ sanctions on the $5.4 billion Russian S-400 Triumf anti-missile deal, but will discuss Washington’s concerns over the issue during talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday.

On a visit to Delhi to prepare for the Trump-Modi meeting this weekend, Mr. Pompeo landed on Tuesday evening ahead of a full day of meetings with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval on Wednesday, where he will also call on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Mr. Pompeo will start his day with full-delegation meetings with Mr. Jaishankar followed by a press briefing. No MoUs or agreements are expected to be announced, although negotiations on two important agreements, the Industrial Security Annexe and the Geo-spatial cooperation agreement BECA have made considerable progress. Mr. Pompeo will hold a closed-door interaction with Indian and American businesses to speak about the impasse over a trade deal and the U.S. withdrawal of India’s GSP (Generalized System of Preferences) status.

In the evening, he will meet Mr. Modi before the latter leaves for Osaka, and also give a public address aimed at India’s youth. Mr. Pompeo will leave for Osaka early Thursday morning.

While strategic relations and people-to-people ties are on the agenda during the main talks, trade issues between the two countries are expected to take centre stage, diplomatic sources said. In addition, the U.S.’s objections to the purchase of the S-400, its sanctions on Indian imports of oil from Iran and Venezuela as well as its new demand that India must not allow Chinese telecom major Huawei to participate in 5G network trials are likely to come up for discussion.

The sources acknowledged that the U.S. had made known its concerns over the S-400 deal and other issues quite openly, and India fears becoming “collateral damage” of the U.S.’ relationships with other countries. In the past few weeks, a number of senior U.S. diplomats and officials have suggested that if India goes through with buying the S-400, the U.S. will not offer India certain hi-technology platforms or may hold back on F-21/F-35 sales, as it had done with Turkey which has also bought the S-400.

“[The U.S.] must realise that we have a long-standing defence relationship with Russia which we cannot wish away,” a government official said on Tuesday, adding that the S-400 deal had been discussed with the Putin government for a long time before it was signed in October last. “If you look at it purely from a legal point of view, India fulfils the requirements for a CAATSA waiver,” the official said, referring to the U.S. law that bans military purchases from Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Riaz Haq said...

Analyst @BharatKarnad: #US-#India interests differ. #Modi should worry India has world's largest population of ill-educated, unskilled, unemployable youth with health & socio-economic indices worse than world’s poorest states', & second-rate military dependent on imported arms

https://bharatkarnad.com/2019/06/24/modi-needs-to-realise-whats-good-for-the-us-is-not-good-for-india/

With both the prime minister and his new external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, tilting towards the United States, India’s status and stature in the world is all set to decline.

By Bharat Karnad


some of these tactical moves are beginning to tax the patience and goodwill of India’s more steadfast friends, and there’s bound to be adverse reaction. India’s growing military closeness to the US and its seeming compliance with Washington’s demand that it cut its reliance on Russian arms has already stirred Russian President Vladimir Putin, called the “apostle of payback” by former US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and ambassador to Moscow, into selling Kamov utility helicopters to Pakistan as a warning to Delhi. More lethal and technologically sophisticated military hardware at “friendship prices” could be headed Islamabad’s way in the future. Should Moscow get really punitive, India would face the nightmare of a Russia-China-Pakistan nexus.
-----------
India has spent trillions of rupees since 1947 on education, social welfare programmes and defence. But, 70-odd years later, the country has the largest population in the world of ill-educated, unskilled, unemployable youth, certain health and socio-economic indices that are worse than those of some of the world’s poorest states, and a showy but short-legged and second-rate military dependent on imported armaments.

Yet look at India in macro terms using the somewhat dubious ‘purchasing power parity’ concept and it gets rated as a trillion-dollar economy. What explains this anomaly?

Tufts University political scientist Michael Beckley’s pioneering theory of international relations suggests that gross measures – such as population, GDP, defence budgets, size of armed forces, etc. – are less accurate in assessing the power of nations than “net” factors, such as how effectively national resources are converted into measurable and decisive political, economic and military capability and diplomatic leverage and clout.

In other words, it’s the outcomes that matter. By this standard, the more advanced countries of the West seem to be more efficient converters of their human and material resources into usable policy assets relative to India and other middling powers, or even China, which in this respect falls somewhere in between these two sets of states.

So analysing the outcomes of Narendra Modi’s foreign policy – which is a continuation of the Indian government’s approach and policy from the days of P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh – and of S. Jaishankar’s central role in crafting several crucial agreements in service of this policy, may be a good way of judging its success.

The distinctive feature of India’s external relations in the new century is the pronounced tilt towards the United States. Narasimha Rao worked to obtain a rapprochement in the 1990s, and Vajpayee agreed on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). This culminated in 2008 with the civil nuclear cooperation deal with the US and, during Modi’s first term, in India signing two of the three “foundational accords” proposed by Washington – the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). The third, Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for sharing geo-spatial information, is awaiting signature.

Riaz Haq said...

Analyst @BharatKarnad: #US-#India interests differ. #Modi should worry India has world's largest population of ill-educated, unskilled, unemployable youth with health & socio-economic indices worse than world’s poorest states', & second-rate military dependent on imported arms

https://bharatkarnad.com/2019/06/24/modi-needs-to-realise-whats-good-for-the-us-is-not-good-for-india/

With both the prime minister and his new external affairs minister, S. Jaishankar, tilting towards the United States, India’s status and stature in the world is all set to decline.

By Bharat Karnad


some of these tactical moves are beginning to tax the patience and goodwill of India’s more steadfast friends, and there’s bound to be adverse reaction. India’s growing military closeness to the US and its seeming compliance with Washington’s demand that it cut its reliance on Russian arms has already stirred Russian President Vladimir Putin, called the “apostle of payback” by former US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and ambassador to Moscow, into selling Kamov utility helicopters to Pakistan as a warning to Delhi. More lethal and technologically sophisticated military hardware at “friendship prices” could be headed Islamabad’s way in the future. Should Moscow get really punitive, India would face the nightmare of a Russia-China-Pakistan nexus.
-----------
India has spent trillions of rupees since 1947 on education, social welfare programmes and defence. But, 70-odd years later, the country has the largest population in the world of ill-educated, unskilled, unemployable youth, certain health and socio-economic indices that are worse than those of some of the world’s poorest states, and a showy but short-legged and second-rate military dependent on imported armaments.

Yet look at India in macro terms using the somewhat dubious ‘purchasing power parity’ concept and it gets rated as a trillion-dollar economy. What explains this anomaly?

Tufts University political scientist Michael Beckley’s pioneering theory of international relations suggests that gross measures – such as population, GDP, defence budgets, size of armed forces, etc. – are less accurate in assessing the power of nations than “net” factors, such as how effectively national resources are converted into measurable and decisive political, economic and military capability and diplomatic leverage and clout.

In other words, it’s the outcomes that matter. By this standard, the more advanced countries of the West seem to be more efficient converters of their human and material resources into usable policy assets relative to India and other middling powers, or even China, which in this respect falls somewhere in between these two sets of states.

So analysing the outcomes of Narendra Modi’s foreign policy – which is a continuation of the Indian government’s approach and policy from the days of P.V. Narasimha Rao, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh – and of S. Jaishankar’s central role in crafting several crucial agreements in service of this policy, may be a good way of judging its success.

The distinctive feature of India’s external relations in the new century is the pronounced tilt towards the United States. Narasimha Rao worked to obtain a rapprochement in the 1990s, and Vajpayee agreed on the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). This culminated in 2008 with the civil nuclear cooperation deal with the US and, during Modi’s first term, in India signing two of the three “foundational accords” proposed by Washington – the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). The third, Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for sharing geo-spatial information, is awaiting signature.

Riaz Haq said...

Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Deng Xiaoping's comments in Beijing to Albanian Communist Party's visiting delegation in 1962 (as quoted in China’s India War, 1962 as quoted in"Looking Back to See the Future: Looking Back to See the Future" edited by Air Commodore Jasjit Singh published in 2013:

"During the last two years it is clear that the American imperialists are helping two forces in Asia: Japan and India. These two forces have yet to form completely. The attempts by the American imperialists to increase the power of India are due to the fact that India is very populous, while Japan is both populous and technologically advanced. Of course, lesser countries of South Asia and Indochina are also included in this plan. Their specific measures are intended to help India become a great power, but its body is very weak. In other words, they are trying to shift India from a policy of neutrality to the side of the American imperialists. Should something like this come to fruition, it would be a blow not only to China, but to the Soviet Union as well. When they help India, they offend Pakistan. The public opinion in Pakistan is now on the side of a change in the government policy, and now Pakistan has a good position towards us. This has yet to be achieved completely. It would take a long time to achieve it."

https://books.google.com/books?id=p026DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT43&lpg=PT43&dq=Deng+Xiaoping++%22During+the+last+two+years+it+is+clear+that+the+American+imperialists...%22+are+helping+two+forces+in+Asia:+Japan+and+India.&source=bl&ots=FChSC5HL2H&sig=ACfU3U1RgRq5sz7kNB9e2DO_iS3hWjZXTA&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQjrS3nf7lAhUTsp4KHV7uBokQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=snippet&q=Japan%20India&f=false

Riaz Haq said...

Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Deng Xiaoping's comments in Beijing to Albanian Communist Party's visiting delegation in 1962 (as quoted in China’s India War, 1962 as quoted in"Bulletin: Inside China's Cold War" 2007:

"During the last two years it is clear that the American imperialists are helping two forces in Asia: Japan and India. These two forces have yet to form completely. The attempts by the American imperialists to increase the power of India are due to the fact that India is very populous, while Japan is both populous and technologically advanced. Of course, lesser countries of South Asia and Indochina are also included in this plan. Their specific measures are intended to help India become a great power, but its body is very weak. In other words, they are trying to shift India from a policy of neutrality to the side of the American imperialists. Should something like this come to fruition, it would be a blow not only to China, but to the Soviet Union as well. When they help India, they offend Pakistan. The public opinion in Pakistan is now on the side of a change in the government policy, and now Pakistan has a good position towards us. This has yet to be achieved completely. It would take a long time to achieve it."

https://books.google.com/books?id=7mgRckgFXoUC&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq=%22The+public+opinion+in+Pakistan+is+now+on+the+side+of+a+change+in+the+government+policy,+and+now+Pakistan+has+a+good+position+towards+us.+This+has+yet+to+be+achieved+completely.+It+would+take+a+long+time+to+achieve+it.%22&source=bl&ots=FFQavaIEaO&sig=ACfU3U3NFaCMUDhrcKfxzTMMR5-3z80X6g&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnh63Hov7lAhWBu54KHZ4bBaYQ6AEwAXoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20public%20opinion%20in%20Pakistan%20is%20now%20on%20the%20side%20of%20a%20change%20in%20the%20government%20policy%2C%20and%20now%20Pakistan%20has%20a%20good%20position%20towards%20us.%20This%20has%20yet%20to%20be%20achieved%20completely.%20It%20would%20take%20a%20long%20time%20to%20achieve%20it.%22&f=false

Riaz Haq said...

What Would #US-#Pakistan War Look Like?
One word: Hell! #India could help with runways for US warplanes. US would assume some #Pakistani #nuclear weapons would survive sustained air campaign to destroy them & then used against #American forces or targets. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-would-hypothetical-us-pakistan-war-look-141072

In the U.S. television series Homeland, the United States and Pakistan are brought to the brink of war. In real life, the two countries are allies, albeit strained ones at that, and many Americans believe Islamabad often actively works against Washington’s interests. If the relationship turned poisonous, how would the United States prosecute a war against Pakistan?
--------

A U.S. war with Pakistan would be extremely difficult to wage and fraught with difficulty. It would also be forced to proceed under the assumption that some Pakistani nuclear weapons would survive a sustained effort to destroy them, to be used against U.S. forces or targets in some way later in the campaign. This is the sort of uncertainty that can veto military action and makes a war between Washington and Islamabad an absolute conflict of last resort.

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

Of course, there is one regional power that can provide everything the U.S. needs, including local air bases and a large army, navy, and air force, already positioned in the theater with well-sketched battle plans: India. India could help with an air campaign, providing runways for U.S. fighter bombers to operate from, or even contribute its own airpower. Indian ground forces have a far shorter route to Islamabad and overmatch Pakistani forces on the ground.-----------


In order to proceed, let’s sketch out two war scenarios. In one, we’ll assume that the United States is pursuing an air-only campaign, in order to punish the country or strip it of some vital capability—nuclear weapons being a prime example. In the second scenario, the United States seeks to topple the country’s government entirely, including the occupation of the capital, Islamabad.
----------------

An air campaign against Pakistan would be slower and more fraught with difficulty than past campaigns. Pakistan’s Air Force has nearly four hundred fighters, including American F-16 Fighting Falcons, and would need to be quickly destroyed. U.S. Navy and Air Force aircraft could see their first significant air to air combat since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

An all-out invasion of Pakistan would be much more difficult, bordering on impractical. An invasion would require securing the city of Karachi, a coastal city of 14 million, then a march upcountry of approximately 700 miles. Securing Karachi alone would be an immense effort dwarfing efforts to secure Baghdad in the late 2000s, one that required more than 100,000 U.S. troops and the cooperation of local militias.

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

Another power that could join such a conflict is China. China and Pakistan enjoy warm relations, and the rhetoric between the two countries suggests a relationship nearing that of a mutual defense pact. But it isn’t, and it’s not clear that China would risk direct conflict with the United States if Pakistan in some way overreached. China might, on the assumption that a U.S. puppet state in neighboring Pakistan would diminish China’s power and influence abroad. It’s worth remembering that the last time Chinese forces fought Americans was after the U.S.-led United Nations forces advanced into a state neighboring Beijing.

Riaz Haq said...

Excerpts of Bruce Riedel's "JFK's Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War"


https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/books/story/20151102-jfk-to-the-rescue-820667-1999-11-30


https://twitter.com/clary_co/status/1259164657442525186?s=20

For (then US ambassador to India J.K.) Galbraith "the nightmare of a combined attack by Pakistan and China, with the possibility of defeat, collapse and even anarchy in India, was much on my mind. My concern was about equally divided between helping the Indians against the Chinese and keeping peace between the Indians and the Pakistanis". The ambassador was right to be concerned. From the beginning of hostilities (Pakistan's President) Ayub Khan began pressing for some kind of Indian "compensation" in Kashmir in exchange for Pakistani neutrality. As the United States began to back India publicly on the McMahon Line and then to send it arms, Ayub Khan felt betrayed by Kennedy. The promise he had gotten in July 1961 that Washington would not arm India, even if China attacked, without Pakistan's agreement seemed to be a dead letter: The "most allied ally" was being forsaken to help its bigger neighbor.

Washington sided immediately with Galbraith on Kashmir, but thought it would be useful for (US Ambassador to Pakistan Walter P.) McConaughy to be able to tell Ayub Khan that Nehru would welcome reassurances of Pakistani neutrality. Galbraith that evening saw the prime minister and wrote later in his diary, "Nehru was frail, brittle, and seemed small and old. He was obviously desperately tired". When asked if the United States could tell Ayub Khan that Nehru would welcome a Pakistani assurance of neutrality, the prime minister said he would not object. Galbraith then "moved in very hard saying this would not be sufficient, that we must be able to say that Nehru would warmly accept such assurances. He looked a little stunned". Nehru relented and agreed that such a letter would be helpful. Galbraith pressed further and asked Nehru to promise that he would positively respond to a Pakistani assurance. Nehru said "on some appropriate occasion he would". Galbraith pressed hard again and said, "This was a time for generosity and he should be immediately forthcoming. Again Nehru agreed." Thus Galbraith was increasingly becoming a key policy counselor to the Indian prime minister behind the scenes.

The next day, on October 29, Nehru formally asked Kennedy via Galbraith to supply arms to India. Kennedy had just sent a letter to Ayub Khan describing the Chinese attack on India as an act of aggression and informing him that the United States would provide support to India. Kennedy asked for Pakistan to reassure India that it would not take advantage of the Chinese attack to pressure India. Kennedy's message was, in essence, that the Chinese communists were now threatening a neighbor and that Pakistan, as a member of two alliances built to fight communism, needed to be on the right side. This was why the Pakistanis and Americans were treaty allies: to fight communism.

Nehru did write to Ayub Khan on October 29 to explain the situation as Galbraith had suggested and Ayub wrote back. Nonetheless, throughout late October and November Ayub Khan and his aides publicly criticised U.S. and British military aid to India. After all, Pakistan was an ally of the United States, whereas India was a neutral nonaligned state.

The U.S. State Department assured the ambassador that the rules for this equipment's use would be same as those for the U.S. weapons received by Pakistan: The military equipment was to be used against communist aggression, not India's neighbor.

Riaz Haq said...

#Modi's #India Top Recipient of Foreign Aid; #Pakistan Not Even in Top 15.

https://twitter.com/haqsmusings/status/1261819219890429952?s=20

India is world's no-1 recipient of foreign aid money.

https://www.wristband.com/content/which-countries-provide-receive-most-foreign-aid/

Top 10 Recipients of Foreign Aid From DAC Members
India: $4.21 billion
Turkey: $4.10 billion
Afghanistan: $2.95 billion
Syria: $2.77 billion
Ethiopia: $1.94 billion
Bangladesh: $1.81 billion
Morocco: $1.74 billion
Vietnam: $1.61 billion
Iraq: $1.60 billion
Indonesia: $1.48 billion

Riaz Haq said...

The China-India Border War
CSC 1984
SUBJECT AREA Warfighting
ABSTRACT
Author: CALVIN, James Barnard, Lieutenant Commander,
U. S. Navy

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

The object of this paper is to present an overview of
the 1962 China-India Border War. The paper chronologically
examines the 19th and 20th Century roots of disputed border
areas between China and Indian the increase in tensions and
conflicts in the late 1950s, the skirmishes along the China-
India border, the October-November 1962 hostilities, and the
ceasefire.
The roots of the Border War extend back into the 19th
Century, when both China and British India asserted claims
to desolate, remote mountain areas between China and India.
Military expeditions, intrigue and unproductive diplomatic
exchanges marked decades of relations between the two coun-
tries. Rather than resolving the border issue, Chinese and
British Indian actions only set the stage for conflict.
Major changes in the governments of both China and
India in the late 1940s had brought the two countries to
friendly relations in the early 1950s. The paper examines
how "intrusions"--strategic military projections into each
others claimed territory--again created conflict over the
disputed border areas. The key issue was the 1956-57
construction of a Chinese military highway in the disputed
territory of Aksai China just west of Tibet. India protested
the Chinese "incursion"; diplomatic exchanges continued for
three years without progress or compromise. Each side firmly
asserted its claim to the Aksai Chin area. Large sections of
the North East Frontier Agency, east of Tibet, were also in
dispute. In 1959, India initiated a forward policy of sending
Indian troops and border patrols into disputed areas. This
program created both skirmishes and deteriorating relations
between India and China. The 1961 Indian invasion of Portu-
gese Goa further alarmed Chinese officials in Peking.
The paper examines the state of the Chinese and Indian
armies. In 1962, China was strong and well-prepared for
alpine warfare; India was logistically weak and unprepared.
The paper next examines the conduct of the Border War.
The war began with skirmishes in the summer of 1962. The
significant fighting occurred in October and November, 1962,
along three widely separated fronts. In virtually every
battled the Chinese forces either outmaneuvered or overpowered
the unprepared Indians. In less than six weeks of bloody
fighting, the Chinese completely drove Indian forces back
behind Chinese claim lines.
The paper outlines the November 21, 1962 ceasefire, which
the Chinese dramatically declared after achieving her limited
strategic objectives. Following the ceasefire, China kept
most of her claim in Aksai Chin but gave India virtually all
of India's claim in the North East Frontier Agency--about 70%
of the disputed land!
Finally, the paper evaluates the outcomes and lessons of
the China-India Border War. Significant lessons included:
(Prime Minister Nehru's) rigid adherence to assumptions,
(Nehru's) unwise practice of ignoring advice of senior army
officers, India's poor state of readiness both logistically
and for alpine warfare, and India's underestimation of intel-
ligence. Outcomes of the Border War included modernization
of the Indian army, the roots of the 1965 India-Pakistan Bor-
der War, and realization of China's limited strategic objec-
tives--the limited nature of which was again seen in the 1979
China-Viet Nam Border War.

Riaz Haq said...

Retired #Indian General: "#Ladakh is the only area where physical military collusion can take place between #Pakistan and #China...just to the East of Siachen glacier and is our (#India's) vulnerability" #LadakhStandoff #Kashmir #CPEC https://theprint.in/opinion/china-believes-india-wants-aksai-chin-back-thats-why-it-has-crossed-lac-in-ladakh/430899/ via @ThePrintIndia

China is extremely suspicious of India. It believes that in the long term, India’s strategic aim is to restore the status quo ante 1950 by recovering Aksai Chin and other areas captured/secured by China. India’s alignment with the US, the presence of Tibetan government-in-exile in India, and the aggressive claims on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and Gilgit Baltistan — through which the prestigious China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes — only strengthen China’s suspicion.

--------

In the absence of any government or military briefings, there are speculations galore about the details of the incidents on the LAC and the political/military aims of China. More so, after the two informal summits between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Xi — at Wuhan in 2018 and Mamallapuram in 2019 — wherein both leaders had committed to maintain peace and tranquility on the LAC and give strategic directions to their militaries on border management.

The starting point of any conflict between two nations is the political aim. Military actions are merely the means to achieve that aim. I will reverse the process and analyse the military situation and strategic importance of the areas of the India-China ‘face-offs’ to derive the political aims.

At the outset, let me be very categoric — just like in 1962, 1965, and 1999, we have once again been surprised both at the strategic and tactical levels. The manner in which we had to rush reinforcements from other sectors gives a clear indication that we were surprised. At the strategic level, it was the failure of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) to detect the build-up of the PLA formations from the rear bases to replace the border defence units. Our tactical surveillance with UAVs and patrols has been inadequate to detect this large-scale movement close to the LAC. The ITBP mans the border and ironically is not under the command of the army.

As per unconfirmed reports, the PLA has crossed the LAC and physically secured 3-4 km of our territory along Galwan River and the entire area between Finger 5 and Finger 8 along the north bank of Pangong Tso, a distance of nearly 8-10 km (the areas are marked in this Indian Express sketch in its 2017 report). There also seem to be minor incursions in the area of Hot Springs, in Ladakh’s Chang Chenmo River valley and at Demchok.

My assessment is that the PLA has deployed maximum one brigade each in Galwan River valley and along the north bank of Pangong Tso. Precautionary deployment would have been done at likely launch pads for offensive and other vulnerable areas along the LAC. Reserves would be on short notice to cater for Indian reaction/escalation. The airfield at Ngari has been upgraded and fighter aircraft have been positioned there. It is likely that additional troops have been deployed at Depsang plains, Hot Springs, Spanggur Gap, and Chumar.

It is pertinent to mention that the intrusion by regular troops is not linear like normal border patrols going to respective claim lines. If a brigade size force has secured 3-4 km in Galwan River, it implies that the heights to the north and south have been secured, thus securing a total area of 15 to 20 square km. Similarly, along Pangong Tso, the PLA brigade having secured 8-10 km on the north bank would have also secured the dominating heights to the north to physically control 35-40 square km. And if China subsequently realigns its claim line based on the areas secured, the net area secured would increase exponentially.

Riaz Haq said...

After #spypigeon, #Pakistan sending #locust army to India? #Indian media warn #NewDelhi not to let its “guard down just yet” citing declassified #CIA files of its Cold War in which animals were used to photograph sensitive sites in the former #USSR. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2231962/1-tribune-fact-check-spy-pigeon-pakistan-sends-locust-army-india/

Indian media has claimed that Pakistan is behind the locust attack that has swept the country.

Arnab Goswami, an anchor at Indian news channel Republic TV, made the bizarre allegation on air alleging that the locusts were sent from across the border as a plot to “destroy the country’s agriculture and in-turn the economy”.

Goswami went on to claim tthat the locusts would target Pakistan soldiers.

Indian news outlet The Economic Times, also ran a story probing how the possibility.

The article went as far as to warn New Delhi not to let its “guard down just yet” citing declassified CIA files of its Cold War in which animals were used to photograph sensitive sites in the former USSR.
“As CIA also trained ravens and dolphins, Pakistani locusts should merit closer examination too,” the report states.

The short-horned grasshoppers invaded agriculture fields in both Pakistan and India decimating crops and risking famine in the region.

The locusts entered into the southwestern Balochistan province, from neighboring Iran.

These insects, mainly originating from deserts, eat anything from bark to seeds and flowers while traveling up to a speed of 93.2 miles (149 kilometers) a day.

After destroying crops in western Indian states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, the locusts’ swarms are heading towards national capital Delhi in large numbers.

Indian police also released a pigeon belonging to a Pakistani fisherman after a probe found that the bird, which had flown across the contentious border between the nuclear-armed nations, was not a spy.

“The pigeon was set free yesterday (May 28) after nothing suspicious was found,” said Shailendra Mishra, a senior police official in Indian occupied Kashmir.

It was unclear where the bird was released and whether it flew back to its owner.

The Pakistani owner of the pigeon had urged India to return his bird, which Indian villagers turned over to police after discovering it.

Riaz Haq said...

The recent standoff with China has made many Indians wonder how far can India rely on the US for support. Sanjaya Baru, a policy analyst and former media advisor to Prime Minister of India, inspected the latest book by John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor of the US under the Donald Trump administration in 2018-19, and found that if “Read from a purely Indian perspective, Bolton’s book raises questions about US interest in, if not commitment to, Indian national security. India hardly figures in the book”.

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-john-boltons-memoirs-tell-us-about-us-india-relationship-6481702/

Baru finds that Bolton’s book, titled “The Room Where it Happened: A White House Memoir”, naturally focuses on issues impacting US national security, especially in the period when Bolton was in office. So it is not surprising that the countries mentioned most often, several hundred references to be precise, include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Japan, Britain and the European Union.

But “for an Indian reader, it is sobering to note that India is mentioned on precisely 10 pages — twice along with China, twice along with Pakistan, twice with reference to Iran’s oil sales, once with reference to trade, once with reference to nuclear non-proliferation, once with reference to Russian sale of S-400 missiles and once in the context of a comment by Trump on Narendra Modi,” states Baru.

Baru concludes, “Clearly, India was a marginal concern of the US national security advisor during his term in office”. For instance, Bolton does not take the India-Pakistan border clash of 2019 very seriously.

“For an Indian reader of Bolton, the worrying conclusion is that for all the hype about a special relationship between the world’s oldest and largest democracies, India figures in the mind space of successive US administrations mostly in relation to America’s enduring security concerns — nuclear non-proliferation, Afghanistan-Pakistan, China and Russia,” states Baru.

Even on “the one purely bilateral issue of trade relations,” Bolton is sympathetic to the hawkish views of the US trade representative Robert Lighthizer. In Baru’s opinion, “All this does not contribute to greater confidence-building between Trump’s US and Modi’s India”.

Beyond the US-India relationship, Bolton “confirms the widely held view that Trump is a charlatan. Worse, an ignoramus. The problem, however, does not lie in the fact that Trump knows so little about the complexities of the world and national security. That could be said for most elected politicians anywhere,” writes Baru. “Bolton laments the lack of informed and intelligent policy-making in the Trump administration”.