Interesting thought RK. However my observations are as follows.
1. The US had refused to give us the fighters with their full suit of avionics and EW (electronic warfare) systems which make them the potent platforms that they are. TOT for the AESA radars was not being shared. There were other restrictions as well under the ITAR which fell well short of our expectations. This affected future upgradations. Next was the question of utilising these fighters in theaters where US would not approve like in Pakistan or the Persian Gulf and the reliability of the US maintenance and technical support during use in such areas as also use during joint operations and exercises with other nations. CISMOA was also a big issue. All in all, I feel that the IAF and the MOD decided that it was simply too much of a hassle since comparable technology was available in Europe without the strings.
2. Hey, USD 10 billion for an UNSC permanent seat? No way buddy. The US will extract far more than that for their support and they can't guarantee anything. World opinion is far too fractured for the US to call the shots except in certain countries. UNSC is a long haul buddy and we know that. It is good that we are not going to bend over backwards for the support we may get from the US.
3. The US has a limited role in determining the post US scenario in Afghanistan. They have a strangle hold over Hamid Karzai yes, but what happens when they leave? There are 3 main players in the region which influence Afghanistan and Pakistan is just one of them. We are on the inside track with the other two, namely Iran and Russia.
4. If India wants to be a major player on the international scene and be a 'Policy Changer', as you put it, it is of paramount importance that India should retain its independence in deciding its future course. Aligning ourselves too closely with the Americans or with anybody else will destroy our credibility in the eyes of most countries. The bottom line, I feel, is that India should do what is in India's interests without worrying about American interests or that of other nations. The US has always worked that way and so has Russia and China.
Regards.
Thums Up!!
---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------
Chandra, who is a member of almost all
important non-governmental Indo-US
dialogue processes, told rediff.com that
he is not at all surprised by rejection of
American jets. "Since the last two years, it was amply
clear that India is likely to settle for non-
American jets. Strategic decisions are
never decided by marketing
sophistication or influential lobbying. It is
decided by the strategic factors only," he said. "Such decisions impact our 30 to 35 years
of defence capabilities. You can't go by
strategic relationship only. What will you
do with strong strategic relations if you
lose the war with technically-inferior
aircrafts," Chandra asked.
how every punk kid on the street tends to become a defence analyst...
