Indian Foreign Policy: Paradigm Shift

[Capt.Popeye]

Well with the amount of self-flattery displayed here...it might as well be !

So..... is that the "length and breadth" of your constructive contribution to this thread ??

 

[Armstrong]

Moral needs to kept high!! Few wins whether real or not always help

True...but thats the thing isn't it generally speaking South Asians have a tendency of situating the appraisal instead of appraising the situation.

You've made some good points in your OP - Some that I agree with...others that I don't - but what has followed since then hasn't always been as level headed as that. A doze of jingoism here....a dose of self-righteousness there...thats whats been happening since then.

So..... is that the "length and breadth" of your constructive contribution to this thread ??

Don't get your knickers in a twist Captain....if you feel that you've been wronged that much you need only to press the 'report' button.

As for my contribution...thats between myself and the OP.

 

[Spectre]

True...but thats the thing isn't it generally speaking South Asians have a tendency of situating the appraisal instead of appraising the situation.

You've made some good points in your OP - Some that I agree with...others that I don't - but what has followed since then hasn't always been as level headed as that. A doze of jingoism here....a dose of self-righteousness there...thats whats been happening since then.

Well if you could post a comment critiquing the OP, I would really appreciate it. I had knowingly glossed over quite a few criticisms which are not obvious and aggrandized some of the positives.

I was hoping posters from more nationalities would pick on those omissions, comment and advance the discussion thus making it balanced but so far it has been an masturbatory exercise of an intellectual kind.

Regards

 

[Star Wars]

As for my contribution...thats between myself and the OP.

and rest of the members.....Better to say whats wrong with the argument, than simply claim its "jingoism" and not explain the reasons...

 

[Armstrong]

Well if you could post a comment critiquing the OP, I would really appreciate it. I had knowingly glossed over quite a few criticisms which are not obvious and aggrandized some of the positives.

I was hoping posters from more nationalities would comment and advance the discussion thus making it balanced but so fair it has been an masturbatory exercise of an intellectual kind.

Regards

I think your point about Modi's South Asian foreign policy is well received; I too think that the policy so far has been to patch up, talk to and even move things to the next-level with all South Asian neighbors except Pakistan. On Pakistan - we talk what we want to talk....otherwise we don't need to talk....we can wait and see whether they'd - Pakistan - be willing to come to our viewpoint.

Not that I am complaining - Thats actually quite sensible. Pakistan NEEDs to talk to India....India is INTERESTED in talks with Pakistan - Those two in the bold is what makes all the difference.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Tr


Don't get your knickers in a twist Captain....if you feel that you've been wronged that much you need only to press the 'report' button.

As for my contribution...thats between myself and the OP.

Sure... I can see that ... just as much as PDF uses Laurence J.Peter's "Peter Principle " to elevate its members...
@Spectre; you seem to have missed out adding Kenyans and Martians respectively into your thesis, as we are being told.

 

[Post Colonnial]

One key difference I notice between Modi's use of foreign policy so far vs preceding is that the emphasis has clearly shifted to India-centric economic development. Every trip that Modi has taken has lot more investment and industrial cooperation content.

It may be to do with change in circumstances as well - for example the Manmohan Singh government did all the heavy lifting for the nuclear trade exception. Unfortunately it (the MMS govt) also wasted precious diplomatic capital on purely personality matters such as the Devyani fiasco.

 

[Armstrong]

and rest of the members.....Better to say whats wrong with the argument, than simply claim its "jingoism" and not explain the reasons...

I've been on this forum since 2012...I'm tired of repeating myself or engaging in never-ending discussions that degenerate into little more than cheesy one-liners where either side is hell bent on scoring the maximum brownie points.

Therefore now I only talk about something serious where I think I'll learn something from this conversation.

Sure... I can see that ... just as much as PDF uses Laurence J.Peter's "Peter Principle " to elevate its members...
@Spectre; you seem to have missed out adding Kenyans and Martians respectively into your thesis, as we are being told.

Well whatever principle PDF uses - You're welcome to leave....I promise I won't stop you !

 

[Spectre]

I think your point about Modi's South Asian foreign policy is well received; I too think that the policy so far has been to patch up, talk to and even move things to the next-level with all South Asian neighbors except Pakistan. On Pakistan - we talk what we want to talk....otherwise we don't need to talk....we can wait and see whether they'd - Pakistan - be willing to come to our viewpoint.

Not that I am complaining - Thats actually quite sensible. Pakistan NEEDs to talk to India....India is INTERESTED in talks with Pakistan - Those two in the bold is what makes all the difference.

Sadly we will again be going in circles as we have been for years but just to put the point across - there is a gap in expectation on the surface as you have outlined "Needs" vs "Interest"

I don't for a moment think it makes sense for India to keep so many troops in Kashmir and Siachin neither does it make sense for Pakistan but the ground reality is de-militarization would require joint action. Tragedy is neither side can afford it politically at home. So India being comparatively well off on a collective level can sustain the troop levels for much longer than Pakistan, atleast that is what view is out here. By extending this fallacious logic most of believe that status -quo is beneficial for India.

Status - quo is not beneficial to India, it just hurts us less.

Thereby you have the erroneous "Need" vs Interest differentiation. Both of us need it, but one of us needs it less.

Sure... I can see that ... just as much as PDF uses Laurence J.Peter's "Peter Principle " to elevate its members...
@Spectre; you seem to have missed out adding Kenyans and Martians respectively into your thesis, as we are being told.

Now that you point it out, I should have considering Mars mission was a major foreign policy win and the leader of the free world is Kenyan.

JK.

 

[Star Wars]

I've been on this forum since 2012...I'm tired of repeating myself or engaging in never-ending discussions that degenerate into little more than cheesy one-liners where either side is hell bent on scoring the maximum brownie points.

Therefore now I only talk about something serious where I think I'll learn something from this conversation.

It started with a one liner ...If you are going to come in and criticize/ridicule the thread and its contents then its only normal for people to ask for an explanation....

 

[Armstrong]

Sadly we will again be going in circles as we have been for years but just to put the point across - there is a gap in expectation on the surface as you have outlined "Needs" vs "Interest"

I don't for a moment think it makes sense for India to keep so many troops in Kashmir and Siachin neither does it make sense for Pakistan but the ground reality is de-militarization would require joint action. Tragedy is neither side can afford it politically at home. So India being comparatively well off on a collective level can sustain the troop levels for much longer than Pakistan, atleast that is what view is out here. By extending this fallacious logic most of believe that status -quo is beneficial for India.

Status - quo is not beneficial to India, it just hurts us less.

Thereby you the "Need" vs Interest differentiation. Both of us need it, but one of us needs it less.

Well it is a staring competition the only difference is that unlike a real stare-down where you only end up with runny eyes....here its the future of South Asia at stake.

Who gets to be the center of gravity of South Asia ? India or is someone else going to dilute that....that someone is Pakistan.

Unless we can learn to work together and overcome our differences - A little like Germany and France albeit the size differential would be more akin to Canada and the US !

It started with a one liner ...If you are going to come in and criticize/ridicule the thread and its contents then its only normal for people to ask for an explanation....

Meditate on this...I will !

Now go and make me a sandwich my young Padawan learner !

 

[Spectre]

Well it is a staring competition the only difference is that unlike a real stare-down where you only end up with runny eyes....here its the future of South Asia at stake.

Who gets to be in the center of gravity of South Asia ? India or is someone else going to dilute that....that someone is Pakistan.

Unless we can learn to work together and overcome our differences - A little like Germany and France albeit the size differential would be more akin to Canada and the US !



Meditate on this...I will !

Now go and make me a sandwich my young Padawan learner !

Off- Topic

To quote Yoda "Do. Or do not. There is no try"

We are trying to make peace, trying to make war. One thing I like about Europeans is they they just go crazy and do it. Want Crimea - Just annex it, want to be friends - break the Berlin War, don't like jews - kill them all. We S. Asians keep trying and trying.

 

[Indika]

China is the real issue, Pakistan despite hogging all media attention is just a side show, wish we would quickly

Exactly pakistan is an irritant at the best they serve as a distraction from chinese to keep our focus away from them.

 

[Post Colonnial]

Sadly we will again be going in circles as we have been for years but just to put the point across - there is a gap in expectation on the surface as you have outlined "Needs" vs "Interest"

I don't for a moment think it makes sense for India to keep so many troops in Kashmir and Siachin neither does it make sense for Pakistan but the ground reality is de-militarization would require joint action. Tragedy is neither side can afford it politically at home. So India being comparatively well off on a collective level can sustain the troop levels for much longer than Pakistan, atleast that is what view is out here. By extending this fallacious logic most of believe that status -quo is beneficial for India.

Status - quo is not beneficial to India, it just hurts us less.

Thereby you have the erroneous "Need" vs Interest differentiation. Both of us need it, but one of us needs it less.



Now that you point it out, I should have considering Mars mission was a major foreign policy win and the leader of the free world is Kenyan.

JK.

I don't quite understand what is so terribly amiss about India keeping troops in any part of India including J&K. Afterall the soldiers need to be housed and trained and kept up somewhere, so why not J&K? Pakistanis may not like it but that only adds to the attraction of the idea. But the core reasons are that's where the border is, that's where the trainable terrain is. But that is all about defense strategy and not necessarily all of foreign policy.

I think India's foreign policy construct has to be significantly moved away from the erstwhile weightage of defense matters, or even current weight on pure economics. Foreign policy has to be IMO equally used for defence, economic development, human development and poverty alleviation.

The reason I separate human development and poverty alleviation from economic development may or may not be obvious.

Things like quality of education, hygiene matters, space exploration, medicine and access to healthcare, removal of caste practices - these constitute human development. These are matters India and rest of the world all have problems in and India has a lot to offer the rest of the world; and a lot more to gain from foreign experiences. We need policy vehicles to trigger, launch and sustain these interactions.

Poverty alleviation in India is no longer simply a matter of economics of supply and demand. Corruption, caste politics, and state-to-state politics have become key stumbling blocks. India must learn from the USA on dealing with state to state blockages, and food distribution mechanisms. Corruption eradication requires cultural mechanisms as well as vigilance up gradation. Again something UK and Germany are very good at, that India can benefit from emulating topical policies.

And so on.

 

[Spectre]

I don't quite understand what is so terribly amiss about India keeping troops in any part of India including J&K. Afterall the soldiers need to be housed and trained and kept up somewhere, so why not J&K? Pakistanis may not like it but that only adds to the attraction of the idea. But the core reasons are that's where the border is, that's where the trainable terrain is. But that is all about defense strategy and not necessarily all of foreign policy.

I think India's foreign policy construct has to be significantly moved away from the erstwhile weightage of defense matters, or even current weight on pure economics. Foreign policy has to be IMO equally used for defence, economic development, human development and poverty alleviation.

The reason I separate human development and poverty alleviation from economic development may or may not be obvious.

Things like quality of education, hygiene matters, space exploration, medicine and access to healthcare, removal of caste practices - these constitute human development. These are matters India and rest of the world all have problems in and India has a lot to offer the rest of the world; and a lot more to gain from foreign experiences. We need policy vehicles to trigger, launch and sustain these interactions.

Poverty alleviation in India is no longer simply a matter of economics of supply and demand. Corruption, caste politics, and state-to-state politics have become key stumbling blocks. India must learn from the USA on dealing with state to state blockages, and food distribution mechanisms. Corruption eradication requires cultural mechanisms as well as vigilance up gradation. Again something UK and Germany are very good at, that India can benefit from emulating topical policies.

And so on.

Very well said, importance of human development in foreign policy is a very crucial area most often over-looked.

Generally it takes two forms

1. Targeted/Non Targeted Aid: USAID, UN Aid Programs, UK Aid, Japan Aid, World Bank/IMF aid etc.

Most donor nations are moving towards targeted aid by involving local regional level NGOs. Their effect on poverty alleviation and human development is quantifiable though effectiveness and stickiness is an issue. Some times these are in direct conflict with national interests as we seen recently when Govt banned or put restriction on various NGOs and donors.

2. Indirect Aid/Investment: Human development through improving

a. Infrastructure - Roads, Ports, Power Plants, Cold Storage Chaines etc not only provide employment to weaker sections of society but also help in development of small scale industries as well providing much needed facilities in rural sector

b. housing: Western companies can start low cost housing projects for poor people

c. Agriculture: Israel is helping India alot in this sector through tech collaboration in irrigation, high yield crops etc. As most of population is still dependant on agriculture it would have a huge impact.

Sorry for a half baked post, but quite sleepy.