A New India?

[NSG_BlackCats]

Sir Muse

Yet it is interesting to note Indian defence assets are not directed primarily at China -- why is this? if your suggestion has merit, why are Indian defence assets directed towards Pakistan?

The reason is simple India had faught 2 wars with Pakistan Directly in 1965 and 1971..and 2 war with so called terrorists(But they are Pak army regullars) in 1947 and 1999. That is the primary reason for our defence assets directed against pakistan.
I mentioned our defence spending in terms of GPD bcoz in the above article it was related with our poverty.

Well certainly, on the other hand would it be fair to ask why it seems india have problems with neighbors? And Should neighbors not be alaramed at this increased defense spending

The only neighbor that are alamred are Pakistan and China.
Apart from Defence spending our govt do a lot of things that is not mentioned at all by the so called think tanks. Do you know GOI spends 3.8% of India's GDP on education( Excluding state government) and it might goes upto 6% in 5 years. GOI plans to spend a massive $500 Billion on infrastructure by 2012. Those who lives in India know how much our infrastucture has been improved in last 10 years but surely much more needed to be done. We know we are in the right path but we have to fight against corruption and terrorism.
Thanks

 

[jeypore]

Black cats



The questions with regard to the defense spending of the neighbors of India and the the fact that the Indian defense spending seems to bear little relation with rgard to the spending of it's neighbors are obvious - now lets focus on the why and the underlying assumtions that are the foundation of that policy.

Mr. Bull has articulated this article very well in terms of response, yet the questions keep reacurring regarding the spending of the defense budget. Then one must ask a question of what should be India's defense budget?

What, India every year has to wait and look at it's neighbors expendture and then makes it's own decisions, or better yet wait till Pakistan comes out with it's defense expenditure and India just matches it. Does it not sound rediculous and funny.

This is a clear distortion to compare defense expenditure with the poverty. It simply can apply to any country. Especially, the first world countries, like US, where there defense spending can be compared to health care or dwindling Social security, where the money is badly needed then defense ofcourse.

In this thread, one of the think tank was talking about loan and banking system to make his argument. But the simple case in finance is percentage and allocation, and "allocation of money is key." says Warren Buffet.

 

[Contrarian]

Black cats

in other words, what kind of a security futire are policy makers in India foreseeing? what assumptions are they basing policy decisions on -

The questions with regard to the defense spending of the neighbors of India and the the fact that the Indian defense spending seems to bear little relation with rgard to the spending of it's neighbors are obvious - now lets focus on the why and the underlying assumtions that are the foundation of that policy.

There are multiple aspects to this question.

1. India seeks to constantly enhance its military prowess so as to continue to be the dominant military power atleast in South Asia.

2. Considering that China has an ever increasing budget much greater than India's, India HAS TO match China to a certain extent, such that the Chinese are not tempted to repeat a border incursion to settle border disuputes.

As regards to what the article said, the Himalayas prevent any large scale conflict between India and China, it is partially correct. But define large scale. There has been and can be a large scale conflict in the Eastern and Western sectors of India' border with China. It has been proven in '62, and technology has only made things easier for the next time.

3. One of the MAJOR things India's polity is realizing, albeit slowly, is that military power adds to the Nation's clout and adds to the power of its diplomacy. This realization has been on the increase steadily but slowly.

Prior to this, the military was considered a necessary evil, or a necessary burden on India by the politicians and bureaucrats. Thus, a fraction of the money which could be spent on the military was actually spent.

Expect, this trend to continue again steadily for 10 years, when the new generation of leaders enter Indian political scene.

4.Since Indian planners need to prepare for an actual war with China, the military expenditure will only increase regardless of whether Pakistan, BD spend more money or less on defence.

 

[Contrarian]

Ok, that's more like it.

Indian policy makers seem to identified China as a potential adversary, at least to your thinking.

I think if you read the statements said by various leaders of our country, including the previous Defence Minister, it has been stated QUITE clearly, that China is the Enemy No. 1. His words, not mine.

Yet it is interesting to note Indian defence assets are not directed primarily at China -- why is this? if your suggestion has merit, why are Indian defence assets directed towards Pakistan?

That is obvious, again, i agree with Bull, you are a thinktank, and thus you must exhibit that amount of intelligence.

The assets are directed against Pakistan because :

a. Pakistan has been and continues to be an immediate threat. China is a long term adversary, and one that can be dealt with and tackled over a longer duration of period.

b. India and China have had cold peace for a long time now, and it is a mutual understanding not to liven up tensions against each other by directing major defence assets against each other.

c. India till the last decade could NOT have achieved a economic, diplomatic, or miilitary victory on the PRC.

India did not have the resources and India was the power challenged equally and oppositely by Pakistan at every turn.

Since the last decade, India has moved forward at lightening speed, while Pakistan has slipped backward. Pakistan is no longer the perfect counterweight to India that it has traditionally been. This goes from the economy to the military to International clout. India has broken free of the proverbial Straitjacket of South Asia.

It is no coincidence, that you see India start and sustain these massive infrastructure development program along the border with China, restarting and modernizing the ALG, new airstrips, etc, etc which will be parimarily be used against China. All this has started in the last 10 years.

Being a think-tank, it should all be evidently visible to you.

The suggestion has been made that the article is biased - well, of course it is, it is a polemic. Also the point has been made that since Nepal and Bhutan are landlocked and have security treaties with India that these ought not be included -- possibly, lets again recall that it suits the polemic.

Yes, India has security and friendship treaties with Nepal, Bhutan, Mauritius, Seychelles, and i think even Myanmar.

They are dependent primarily on Indian Military to thwart any agression. They dont contribute to the Indian Military. So discussing them is moot.

Incidentally, you would also have noticed that it is in these last 10 years that India has started scoring in the international arena. Naval bases, warship berthing rights even in wartime in Seychelles, Mauritius, Iran, etc, etc.

No one has chosen to suggest that beyond neighbors indian policy makers seem to be envisioning a security role beyond it's immediate neighbors - what might that role be?

I think that is evident. Indian Policy makers are warming up to the idea that Military power is an extension of National and Diplomatic power. If you look for confirmation, you need only look at how the roles of IN have expanded dramatically in the last 10 years. And the expansion of the IN, already being pursued and what is planned.

 

[Contrarian]

In your opinion, is there any option for India short of confrontation?

Ofcourse there is, and having a stronger military than the opponent assures that confrontation will not happen.

DO you think india may want to project power in distant shores of the Indian ocean and on whose behalf? How would india respond in your opinion to increased Chinese presence in the Indian ocean, arabian sea and persian gulf given their increasing economic and security stake there?

That much is obvious.

For a thinktank you are surprising me Muse.

For one, Indian Navy and MoD have explicitly stated, that the Indian AoI(Area of Interest) ranges from Mallaca Straits to the Straits of Hormuz.

What then is the point of asking us this obvious question among numerous others?

India is responding to increased Chinese presence by building our own bridges and vastly increasing the Indian Navy. From making port calls, to having berthing rights in Seychelles, Mauritius, Oman, Yemen,Madagascar,etc, etc, etc. I cant even remember the rest.

IN has been given rights to patrol even the territorial waters of many of these countries!

Bear in mind, even India has an ever increasing economic and security stake in Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf among other places. And these nations are willing to let IN help them out in their security.

 

[Contrarian]

Well certainly, on the other hand would it be fair to ask why it seems india have problems with neighbors? And Should neighbors not be alaramed at this increased defense spending, ought they not be asking if these capablities are not being aimed at them and then react? And of course neighbors point fingers at India for spreading terror - accusations and recriminations is not what the piece is about - thus far I think Bull has been the most forth right, even though I suspect it was not what he intended.

No nation apart from Pakistan and Bangladesh(maybe) would have a problem with India increasing its defence budget in South Asia. When we talk of entire Asia, the only other entity would be China, considering how they always say that nobody else(read USA) has a right to criticize how much China spends on its defence, they cant really criticize how much India spends.

And only 2 nations point fingers at India about spreading terror-Pakistan and Bangladesh. So both points are moot. I dont really think Indian policymakers worry much about that.

Ties with Bangladesh are already on the mend, i hope within these 5 years with their new PM, there should be considerable progress. There is a massive realization in Indian policy circles that this would be the IDEAL time to sort out all issues with Bangladesh, as they have an India friendly PM. As you can see, things are already moving forward with trade deals already signed.

It certainly is not normal, normal suggests a norm to compare with - I will grant you that if compare by GDP, it is lower than pakistan's per figures you cite, however; there is little denying that indian defense spending and in particular rhe capablities it has and will generate have been increasing - one wonders if the present level of spending could not bring solutions to communal warfare and of course kashmir, then there is the terror business. Look I'm not suggesting that it is not up to indians to do with their national wealth as they see fit, what I want to point to is to see how the reaction to these spending will be --- You know the rule of 8 to 8 soldier per insurgent? Now strategic advantages are diminished with ballistic missles and nuclear weapons, 1 such weapon or 10 such weapons, it's really the same isn't it?

You are digressing. This topic is not about communal war, or Kashmir. This is about increasing the conventional military capabilities of India.

When the article poses the question of who it is that india prepare to fight, I think we may consider that these capablities are not to be exercised on the land mass of the sub-continent.

Yes, NOT the subcontinent, but the Continent.

 

[spsk]

Hey after all you need the country to be saved from external threat India surrounded by countries which are either unstable or a major threat.
30 Bn $s for 1 Tn $ economy ! .Do you really think its very high ?

 

[muse]

oops, sorry guys, sorry for being a poor correspondent.

Interesting responses, very strident, very "bring it on" --- yet curiously on a thread that quotes much of the article by Dr. Farrukh on the world affairs board (thread by Ali), Indian friends seem to be saying exactly the opposite -- what up vid that? No, I am not suggesting any forked tongue imagery - just that it's curious