India's strategic cooperation with Southeast Asia

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Is that wat they thought wen they arse whooped ur country in the Sino-Vietnam war..?

Sir,Don't waste precious bytes of Internet space on replying to trollers,they"re not worth it.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Originally Posted by CardSharp:
"I think you are trying to cultivate something that is not there. Buddhism came as a religion and we made it our own to fit our own culture(besides you guys aren't Buddhists anymore).

Ask any southeast asian whether Buddhism or Confucianism had a bigger influence and you'll get your answer. (there's a reason why the imperial palace in Hui Vietnam was modeled after the Forbidden City in Beijing) "

@ CardSharp
May i make a submission;
What you are speaking about is a matter of History, not a matter of Prestige. That area has seen changing influences partly because of the simple fact "that the Earth rotates around the Sun". In other words, passage of time. First there was a period of time when Buddhist influence was strong, later Confucian influence and later still Islamic influence (e.g. in Indonesia, Malaysia etc.) and so on. A 'very small' example; while working in Indonesia, i observed that wives/ daughters of Indonesian friends/colleagues had names like 'Parwati', 'Laksmi','Megawati' and so on. Typically Hindu names given to practicing Muslims, which i found unusual. i remarked on this; and received the reply that they were perfectly good Indonesian names which they liked, period. It can be explained thus: the Hindu influence arrived in the Archipelago first, the Islamic influence arrived later. The people concerned, assimilated one influence earlier later the other; keeping whichever parts they wished to. This process is as natural and inevitable as the seasons, if i may say so.
All influences (based on Philosophy/Religion etc.) have waxed and waned over the years. IMHO, it is nothing to mourn or gloat about. All this is part of the evolutionary changes to Humankind.
Just a view.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

I am afraid its a little too early for India to focus on strategic cooperation with South east Asia while still struggling with maintaining a good cooperation with your South Asia neighbors. Is it more reasonable to a "one step at a time" approach?
When you are losing ground to your biggest competitor China in your neighborhood, what made Indians think they can success in South east Asia?

The strategic vision and sense of purpose being shown by China in the sub-continent is in stark contrast to the manner in which India is drifting along, in spite of being seen as the region’s custodian. While India has been burning diplomatic bridges with its neighbours with its ‘big brother’ attitude, China has been building them.

In 2002, India and China did about the same amount of trade (exports and imports) with their four big South Asian neighbours, namely Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In 2007, China was doing 36% more than India (See table: China Versus India).

business.outlookindia.com | Fight For The Neighbourhood

I like the point you"ve made,But isn't it obvious given the fact that China is the largest exporter in the world, the volume of trade or exports will naturally be larger.

Another point,All South Asian nations(except Pakistan) want equidistant relations with India and China,They won't ignore India as India is also a growing power at the same time the "geographic proximity" factor plays in.

Bottom line:These nations will merely exploit the race between India and China for strategic relations with them.

 

[Tshering22]

Eh? We're not Buddhists ? Almost entire Eastern India has a following of Buddhism except three states. We're small in ratio to mainstream Hinduism but it is all one and the same philosophy for us. You see, from top to bottom any learned Buddhist considers Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism as branches of one ancient philosophy.

The point is Buddhist culture started from our country and was the sole reason for the strong friendship with you we had for the last 2,000 odd years.

Why are you being so concerned? You're a Communist now aren't you?

 

[Tshering22]

I am afraid its a little too early for India to focus on strategic cooperation with South east Asia while still struggling with maintaining a good cooperation with your South Asia neighbors. Is it more reasonable to a "one step at a time" approach?
When you are losing ground to your biggest competitor China in your neighborhood, what made Indians think they can success in South east Asia?

The strategic vision and sense of purpose being shown by China in the sub-continent is in stark contrast to the manner in which India is drifting along, in spite of being seen as the region’s custodian. While India has been burning diplomatic bridges with its neighbours with its ‘big brother’ attitude, China has been building them.

In 2002, India and China did about the same amount of trade (exports and imports) with their four big South Asian neighbours, namely Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. In 2007, China was doing 36% more than India (See table: China Versus India).

business.outlookindia.com | Fight For The Neighbourhood

Do you think we care anymore about our immediate neighbourhood with them howling for our blood? The countries you mention have hostile intentions against our countries and since they cannot militarily challenge us, they tend to use the 'victim of a big bully' image and take your side.

It is not our problem if their governments cannot feed them but they aren't allowed to come into our countries whether through illegal immigration or through setting up terror networks. If such troublemakers are caught, naturally our forces will take punitive measures.

We'd prefer the more friendlier Thailand, Burma, Nepal, Sri Lanka (they three can have you and us both for multi-lateral cooperation, you know ), Bhutan, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam than constantly running behind to keep appeasing Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, it'd be better if we reduce trade with the two potentially hostile states and compensate it with greater ties with the Southeast.

It is their loss if they want to maintain hostile relations with us. We don't have eternal patience to run behind those who want to be hostile to us.

You can assist the 3 specific countries in terms of exporting cost-effective goods while we can trade with them in our way. What's the harm?

 

[ChinaChina]

Is that wat they thought wen they arse whooped ur country in the Sino-Vietnam war..?

no that is what they thought when we arse whooped yr country in the sino-india war 1962
india

 

[faithfulguy]

Indian members in here is really ambitious about Indias imperial reach. Why not "strategic relationship" with Europe, Africa and Latin America?

Truth is that India is developing relationship with all countries all over the world. but do not confuse that as a stretegic relationships. Most countries have some form of relationship with one another. But if you categorize any relationships as "strategic" there would be no such relationship as non-strategic and the word "strategic" itself become blank.

India is seeking trade and cultural ties with all as per its ability. Do not over analyze the relationships

 

[Tshering22]

Indian members in here is really ambitious about Indias imperial reach. Why not "strategic relationship" with Europe, Africa and Latin America?

Truth is that India is developing relationship with all countries all over the world. but do not confuse that as a stretegic relationships. Most countries have some form of relationship with one another. But if you categorize any relationships as "strategic" there would be no such relationship as non-strategic and the word "strategic" itself become blank.

India is seeking trade and cultural ties with all as per its ability. Do not over analyze the relationships

Look who's talking about "imperial"! . Anyway, you do know that we've started cooperating with Brazil in defense as well. Cooperation with Latin America has also started late and is in its nascent stage. We Indian members talk must more practical events than some clowns on this forum talking of PRC capable enough to take out USA alone.

You under-estimate us way too much to observe or understand the signs.

I don't think our Army chief has recently gone to Vietnam with holy scrolls or bags of spices in his hand. That's called development of strategic cooperation. Vietnam offers us something that we cannot say no to easily: What ports of Sri Lanka and Paksitan have offered to your country in recent times.

Agreed that strategic cannot be everybody but hey, If USA took time in the World Wars and from then has cultivated strategic ties with 25+ countries, when PRC has turned 3 of our neighbours into its strategic partners, why can't we deal with 3-4 countries on our immediate southeast? We have begun slowly but give it time and it would automatically show results. Everything grows and emerges slowly isn't it?

Its a free world.

 

[Tshering22]

no that is what they thought when we arse whooped yr country in the sino-india war 1962
india

I appreciate you to bee keen on reminding us of this factor. Thanks for it will help us a lot in future.

 

[faithfulguy]

Look who's talking about "imperial"! . Anyway, you do know that we've started cooperating with Brazil in defense as well. Cooperation with Latin America has also started late and is in its nascent stage. We Indian members talk must more practical events than some clowns on this forum talking of PRC capable enough to take out USA alone.

You under-estimate us way too much to observe or understand the signs.

I don't think our Army chief has recently gone to Vietnam with holy scrolls or bags of spices in his hand. That's called development of strategic cooperation. Vietnam offers us something that we cannot say no to easily: What ports of Sri Lanka and Paksitan have offered to your country in recent times.

Agreed that strategic cannot be everybody but hey, If USA took time in the World Wars and from then has cultivated strategic ties with 25+ countries, when PRC has turned 3 of our neighbours into its strategic partners, why can't we deal with 3-4 countries on our immediate southeast? We have begun slowly but give it time and it would automatically show results. Everything grows and emerges slowly isn't it?

Its a free world.

US has strategic ties with countries in Asia because its a mutual beneficial relationship. The US has a strong military and the countries of far east has a need of a country to maintain the peace in the region. That is way US has a presence there. Its not that US is there to reap the fruit of labor of the natives. Such as what the British did to the Indian subcontinent.

The country of India, on the other hand, has a big market to offer to all these countries. That is why India can cultivate business relationships with other countries. But that does not represent strategic interests except from the perspective of business. Even if its about trade ties, India is but a minor presence in South East Asia. That is why any talk of strategic presence in SE Asia is way to premature. Might as well talk about India's strategic interest in Jupitor.

First things first, India need to quell the rebellion within and worry about developing strategic relationships with its immediate neighbors such as Sri Lanka and Nepal. After that, it can look else where. For example, US is by far the largest trading partner of Canada and Mexico as it absorts 75%+ export of these countries. Once the strategic interest of US is secure, then we look at interest in South America, Europe and Asia. The US would not be able to have any strategic interest else where if we have to worry about a war with Mexico or Canada. This is another reason of cuba blockade in 1962. An event that many people in India might not be aware of as India has other concerns at that time.

So the sum of it all is that India need to take care of itself before worry about others. The GDP per capital of India is equivalent to that of Pakistan. Pakistan has some internal concerns. It look like India also have some but its not publicized in the west as much.

 

[Tshering22]

US has strategic ties with countries in Asia because its a mutual beneficial relationship. The US has a strong military and the countries of far east has a need of a country to maintain the peace in the region. That is way US has a presence there. Its not that US is there to reap the fruit of labor of the natives. Such as what the British did to the Indian subcontinent.

Well, USA must have started somewhere in some condition because of which it got today where it is now isn't it? Unless we start, how'd we know. Regarding the bolded part, I assure you that Pakistani members here will beg to differ in opinion.

The country of India, on the other hand, has a big market to offer to all these countries. That is why India can cultivate business relationships with other countries. But that does not represent strategic interests except from the perspective of business. Even if its about trade ties, India is but a minor presence in South East Asia. That is why any talk of strategic presence in SE Asia is way to premature. Might as well talk about India's strategic interest in Jupitor

.

The same thing can be said about China isn't it? The only reason why it is able to cultivate ties is because small countries prefer the cost-effective goods that China exports en masse. It is kind of opposite to what we offer. We have a small presence but we intend to make it bigger in future and that's the point why I asked for a separate sticky thread on this as we are emerging into defense manufacturer market as well gradually.

First things first, India need to quell the rebellion within and worry about developing strategic relationships with its immediate neighbors such as Sri Lanka and Nepal. After that, it can look else where. For example, US is by far the largest trading partner of Canada and Mexico as it absorts 75%+ export of these countries. Once the strategic interest of US is secure, then we look at interest in South America, Europe and Asia. The US would not be able to have any strategic interest else where if we have to worry about a war with Mexico or Canada. This is another reason of cuba blockade in 1962. An event that many people in India might not be aware of as India has other concerns at that time.

You're right here. 100% agreed that we should crush all terrorism such as Maoism and Kashmiri separatist-terrorists with brute force since we've spent years trying to talk peacefully with them. But then again, we should multi-task in order to get all the matters going together.

So the sum of it all is that India need to take care of itself before worry about others. The GDP per capital of India is equivalent to that of Pakistan. Pakistan has some internal concerns. It look like India also have some but its not publicized in the west as much.

Per capita is pretty low yes and we are very slightly higher than Pakistan.. because of corruption. But that doesn't mean we can overlook our strategic concerns. For example, we're not exactly giving these countries a nuclear shield and rather are trying to be like how Russia is with us--on a mixture of commercial and military partnership. It helps to build trust and that's most important.

You lot taught us a valuable lesson about "when heading towards development, take your friends and make new friends alongside with you".

 

[CardSharp]

I appreciate you to bee keen on reminding us of this factor. Thanks for it will help us a lot in future.

Don't mind him, he knows Indian members are sensitive about the issue so he wants to poke fun at it.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Why do u always have to appear with some crappy analysis (if at all it is called "analysis") in matters that u have knowledge in the fractions.

please man..spare this thread.

Where am i wrong?According to ur pal vietnam had indian influence in the past?

Mr (ANALIST)... In ur case i bet its the best word tht defines u.

 

[Ras]

So the sum of it all is that India need to take care of itself before worry about others. The GDP per capital of India is equivalent to that of Pakistan. Pakistan has some internal concerns. It look like India also have some but its not publicized in the west as much.

Considering that India has 10 times the population that is actually makes Pakistan look in a really bad light...for comparison war ravaged Sri Lanka and Bhutan have close to 2 times the per capita of India and Pakistan.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Considering that India has 10 times the population that is actually makes Pakistan look in a really bad light...for comparison war ravaged Sri Lanka and Bhutan have close to 2 times the per capita of India and Pakistan.

Well go back a few years u find us havin more per capita then india...
all this crap is due to the USAs imported wot tht destroyed our booming economy n growth.

But we have hope n the vision ... the WOT wont always remain nor this bad economic or security situation.