According to Prakash Karat, the joint naval exercise with the US harms India’s sovereignity.
The opportunity to learn from the world’s most powerful navy harms our sovereignity.
The insights we get into naval warfare harm our sovereignity.
The goodwill we will build with major world powers harms our sovereignity.
The recognition of India as a regional power with a stake in ensuring the security of shipping lanes harms our sovereignity.
The only way to preserve our sovereignity is to hand our domestic and foreign policy over to a bunch of traitors who’re hellbent on stalling economic progress and who have a track record of supporting the country we’re at war with.
If you repeat a divine argument enough, it becomes true.
Why settle for a “regional power” status bestowed by the west when you can join hands with China and be the global power? No matter how much we cosy up to US, the fact is that US is half way across the world from us whereas China is our neighbour. Much better to have friendly relations with China than with US.
And why would China let us be a global power?
Because we are too big for them to take us on? It is in their interest to have friendly relations with us for the same reason why it is in our interest to have friendly relations with them.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_4_31/ai_82064208
“Joint opposition to Western dominance is one motivation for a Russia-China-India strategic partnership.”
That article is from 2001. Since then, India, China, Russia have had a summit in 2005 where they came out with a joint statement listing the objectives of such a strategic partnership. It is only India over the past two years which is dragging its feet in taking that relationship forward, while playing footsie with US at the same time.
You can find a bunch of articles on the subject here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Russia-China-India_%22strategic_triangle%22
Particularly useful one:
http://www.saag.org/papers15/paper1424.html
We aren’t too big for them to take us on. We are too big for them to defeat us, so their obvious strategy is to contain us. Because we are neighbours and we are both interested in the same general region, we are competitors. There is no reason at all for China to let us be a superpower.
Comment edited because seeing grammatical errors in a comment by Ravikiran threatens to shatter my worldview. – Aadisht
I don’t understand this “we are neighbours, and hence competitors” logic. By that logic, shouldn’t France, Britain and Germany have been competitors? Yet we find that they have had a friendly relationship for last 60 years.
Commies contention is that they are training in this joint exercise to take Indian troops along with them to Iran and leave them there to keep peace, that’s strategic partnership that they have been opposing…
Mohan, let’s leave the morality of partnering with China aside. Let’s even leave the pragmatism of partnering with China aside. How does conducting a naval exercise with the US:
1. Restrict us to regional power status?
2. Prevent simultaneous friendly relations with China?
Aadisht, that was one of the assumptions. Since US and China aren’t quite the best of friends, since US sees China as their potential rival, the closer we go to US (joint naval exercise, nuclear deal, etc) the further we go from China. If that assumption is not valid, then it goes without saying that there is nothing to lose by strengthening our ties with US.
“Sovereignty” not sovereignity.
All right. Now that that’s resolved, please explain why the US would restrict us to regional power status, while China happily prop us up to global power.
Anonymous: I am most embarassed.
Never said either of that. All I said is we don’t need to be happy that west has recognised as a regional power (“recognition of India as a regional power”), but instead should aspire to be a global power in collaboration with China.
oh before you ask, it could happen in collaboration with US too, but then given that that pits us against China and some other neighbours (since US is headed towards confrontation with them) it makes our life difficult and hence reduces the chances of us becoming a global power.
All this has been discussed at http://greatbong.net/2007/08/25/one-two-buckle-my-shoe/#comments
Why settle for global power status bestowed by China when you can ally with the Borg and become a galactic superpower? The US and China will have no choice but to prepare to be assimilated.
“Sovereignty” not sovereignity.
This from somebody who spells his name as “annonymous” with two Ns.
quoting from wiki about what makes a superpower (among other things) – “such a state should have high levels of domestic cohesion, clear sense of national identity and stable administration based on strong legal and institutional arrangements”.
Now that seems a bigger, almost impossible challenge for India. And how many political parties have this on the agenda ?- zilch.
kunal: Nice try. Except the Borg is fictional and China isn’t.
How many times should China invade India to prove its point?
Global American dominance is a good thing.
I: By that logic, how many times should an American president wish a mass famine on Indians to prove what they really think of India and Indians?
Mohan, how does a past private conversation of American officials impact future foreign policy?
And if it does, then why does a past war not impact foreign policy?
Well. If China has not invaded India again, it has less to do with Indian economic or military might than possible American economic/strategic retaliation.
Never mind the details of the 1971 war and Cold War realities, which won’t support your argument anyway.
aadisht: if you notice, I brought up reference to that past conversation in response to a remark suggesting that a war of 40 years ago should guide our foreign policy.
So private conversations are comparable to wars?
aadisht: no, but it does show what they think. In any case, it wasn’t just limited to private conversation. They had a war ship stationed at Bay of Bengal threatening India. While that in itself doesn’t constitute war, it certainly counts as an aggressive action. So they had aggressive thoughts and aggressive action.
I: As for cold war realities, so US can change its attitude towards India but we have to assume that Chinese attitude will remain frozen at what it was in ’62?
Mohan, your points are contradicting themselves with every comment you make. The US has shown its attitude has changed through the nuclear deal. What evidence do we have for China’s change of heart? Talk is cheap.
aadisht: take a look at the joint Russia-China-India declaration of 2005 I linked to earlier. Or the growing trade between India and China. Indo-China relations has progressed on many fronts. It would be foolish to think that it is what it was in ’62.
Mohan, declarations are nice. Talk is cheap. Foreign trade has seen a secular growth since liberalisation. What has China done to prop India up as a global power? And bear in mind that it has done a lot to contain India – naval bases all around the Indian ocean, arms supplies to Pakistan, opposition of the nuclear deal.
aadisht: oh the most important one – their support for India’s entry to UNSC. I don’t think even US has committed to that till now. Arms supplies to Pakistan is something US does too. Much more than China.
Okay, let me try again. Most of America’s foreign policy actions that have hurt India have been alliances of convenience for perceived self-interest and counter- measures to India’s ill-advised honeymoon with the Evil Empire. Not conscious anti-Indianism. But China’s actions have always threatened India directly: territorial disputes, wars, proxy wars, transfer of nuclear technology to Pakistan, competition for the US market, etc etc.
Further, China is an expansionist state whose army does not have to listen to the President. That creates a lot of bad possibilities for India and the world.
I: How does it matter whether it was anti-Indianism or self-interest? Fact is, both US and China were anti-India in the past and now both have extended a hand of friendship. All I am saying is, it might be beneficial for India to develop friendship with China than with US both because of the geographical proximity and the growing power of China.
aadisht: De Bono in today’s ET:
Q: How can India become one of top three economic super powers?
De Bono: If India can partner China, they can be a real superpower in a short time. Alternately, if India and China form a coalition bringing other developing countries in their fold, it will beat all other world superpowers.