What's new

Leading Indian strategist:India not in the same league as US and China!

Back to the thread. This strategist is correct on most points. I must agree with his observation that as long as India unlike the USA and China continues to be an arms importer instead of an arms exporter then the hope of it reaching a powerhouse status is limited. Armaments is one of the leading commodoties in nation trading. No point in earning billions in software and steel etc and spending the taxes generated from those commodoties on arms purchases. China is way ahead of India since it started its economic rehab in the 70s way before India. His observation about an independent Pakistan being crucial to Indian stability is 100% on the mark. Minus the creation of Pakistan, extremist Muslims in India would be seeking to "reconquer" India as an Islamic nation.

Its true that because everyone wants to sell wapons to India, Indian domestic manufacturer are the ones suffering.

I also agree with your point on Muslim wanting to reconquere India as part of India was under Muslim rule for a thousand years.
 
i disagree. nations can get away with out spending large protions on of their money on military development. The money still comes back. You can purchase what you need. We are not living in a world war II era. To dystroy a modern airplane assembly line, you can knock out anyone of the dozens of manufacturing plants easily, with cruise missiles etc... and work would be halted for weeks if not months. Finding parts and redesign. If you want something that can be built easily under enemy strikes than you would design your self after the former soviet union which used the most conventional, not the most expensive or effective. In this day and age, nations are offshoring, including the US on Raptor parts. Point being the US isn't planning on fighting a prolonged war with raptors but rather guns and artillery. Same applies to China, and India. You need the weapons when you go to war, and plan for a short war, not a long one. What do you think arms build up is all about?
 
i disagree. nations can get away with out spending large protions on of their money on military development. The money still comes back. You can purchase what you need. We are not living in a world war II era. To dystroy a modern airplane assembly line, you can knock out anyone of the dozens of manufacturing plants easily, with cruise missiles etc... and work would be halted for weeks if not months. Finding parts and redesign. If you want something that can be built easily under enemy strikes than you would design your self after the former soviet union which used the most conventional, not the most expensive or effective. In this day and age, nations are offshoring, including the US on Raptor parts. Point being the US isn't planning on fighting a prolonged war with raptors but rather guns and artillery. Same applies to China, and India. You need the weapons when you go to war, and plan for a short war, not a long one. What do you think arms build up is all about?

True, but a nation must be capable of producing the weapons it needs. The US do plan to run a prolong war with Raptor and it doesn't expect Raptor to be detectable.

The weaponry use by India could be more easily destroyed as compared to the raptor. If it doesn't have the ability to replentish itself, its not going to be able to fight a long term war.
 
True, but a nation must be capable of producing the weapons it needs. The US do plan to run a prolong war with Raptor and it doesn't expect Raptor to be detectable.

The weaponry use by India could be more easily destroyed as compared to the raptor. If it doesn't have the ability to replentish itself, its not going to be able to fight a long term war.

No country is going for a large scale war in the visible future. Only countries India can be at war with (considering past) are China and Pak. But there too, it doesn't seem to be happening anywhere for a long long time. The armament Indians are purchasing are sufficient for deterrence. My personal belief is, superpowers of future will be determined by its technology and economy, not its mighty army, for there wont be any (convectional) war. This is where we lag behind, and need to cover up large difference.
 
No country is going for a large scale war in the visible future. Only countries India can be at war with (considering past) are China and Pak. But there too, it doesn't seem to be happening anywhere for a long long time. The armament Indians are purchasing are sufficient for deterrence. My personal belief is, superpowers of future will be determined by its technology and economy, not its mighty army, for there wont be any (convectional) war. This is where we lag behind, and need to cover up large difference.

Its true that in order for a country to be powerful, it must have a strong economy and advanced technology. But it must have a way to protect its wealth and culture. So this is done with military and deplomacy.

The war in the future actually would be more limited to conventional exchanges as there is still mutual assured destruction between the powerful nations. As these powerful nations has money and wealth, it won't want to be nuked. So the less poweful ones must identify the criteria that it would use nuclear weapon so its not pushed to that limit. Unless, of course, the more powerful country would even suffer nuclear death to push that limit. If that is the case, we would all be in trouble
 
India not in the same league as US and China, says Bharat Karnad

December 24, 2009 12:06 IST

Bharat Karnad, considered one of India's [ Images ] leading strategists and a strong proponent of a more vigorous foreign and military policy for several years, has said that India is by no means a major power in the league of the United States or China, and will not acquire great power status unless it becomes a military power.

Karnad, an analyst at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi [ Images ], who is currently a visiting fellow at both Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania's Center for the Advanced Study of India, was leading a discussion on 'Obstacles to India's emergence as a great power' hosted by the Brookings Institution. He was particularly dismissive of the recent Legatum Index, which in listing eight variables from Economic Fundamentals to Safety and Security and Entrepreneurship and Innovation to Social Capital, had India coming out ahead of China.

"This is just a kind of feel-good kind of index for India, nothing more," he said, and added, "It just shows a trend path."
Karnad, author of several books on strategy in South Asia, including Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy (2005) and India's Nuclear Policy (2008), who lectures regularly at various military and other forums, said, "While it would be ballyhooed in India, this is the kind of thing that gives Indians a poor sense of their destiny."

"Indian government officials, Indian intellectuals, latch on to concepts like smart power, soft power, and the reason is because it doesn't tax them so much," he argued. "This is not a criterion for greatness."

Karnad, who was introduced by Stephen P Cohen, who heads up the South Asia Program at Brookings as "one of India's best scholars and one of the leading strategists and analysts," asserted that "it's hard power that's the basis for power. You don't get it by selling Bollywood movies and musicals."

He said the obstacles to India's emergence as a great power were "self-defeating obstacles," and said particularly when it came to military power, had four major deficits -- having a vision about India, being convinced about India, having a will, and lack of a strategy.

With regard to a question if India does have security, Karnad said, "Seventy percent of its military hardware is imported, and the reason is that the Indian government has still not gotten down to liberalising its defense industry."

"So, the Indian defence industry will not grow," he predicted, and said, "With the Americans coming in selling more weapons," this deficiency of indigenous production would continue to be lacking.

Karnad said except for nuclear weapons, "Without indigenous production of its own weapons, a great power cannot have security," and said, "The armed services of India is remiss in not promoting and assisting the production of indigenous equipment."

He also predicted: "India will have to go and resume testing (nuclear weapons), which it will. It will have to do."

And, he said, there is no way India would sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, particularly in the current context since "the CTBT is not going anywhere and the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) is in serious disarray."

Karnad also said, "India is not going to be in front pushing for a nonproliferation regime," for all of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] declarations to work with President Barack Obama [ Images ] for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

When he was challenged that if military self-sufficiency is one of the pre-requisites for a great power, how does the US measure up when all of its communications networks and equipment etc are outsourced to countries like Thailand and India, Karnad said, "Mobile telephony -- this kind of communications technology which the US has outsourced out of choice" does not make for military prowess, which is governed by hardcore military hardware.

He acknowledged that in terms of becoming a major economic power, "India is getting there by sheer momentum," but reiterated that "there is no grand strategic plan by the government -- no concerted plan."

Karnad said perhaps India could become a major power, "but not a great power. Only the US and China have that status right now."

"I may be unduly harsh, but like I tell my audiences in India, it's better to be unduly harsh than be like India and be self-congratulatory."

Karnad said, "It's being autarchic really," that's key "to be a great power. A great power has a capacity to be an autarchic system. The basic potential to be autarchic basically defines the great power status of a country."

He said that "for the next 15 years, India will be obsessed with the economic issue -- to acquire prosperity and better ourselves before we start looking at the external world," and projecting any kind of hard power."

Karnad said, "There are the makings of a larger security architecture but India is reticent in coming out and saying, we are a major Indian Ocean power -- that it's Indian naval diplomacy that calls the shots in the area."

He said, "The US was first a great military power before they acquired great power status. Look at any great power in the past -- Napoleonic France [ Images ]. So, military power comes first and historical evidence proves that. India has always been doing things from the other side."

"India has been far too restrained a power," he added.

In terms of the systemic external obstacles to India becoming a great power and if a country like India can afford to use military power against a nuclearised state like Pakistan, Karnad said, "If nuclear weapons have made Pakistan feel more secure, that's a wonderful thing."

"Pakistan is integral to India's security," he said. "If there is no Pakistan, we would have had to invent it. We would have been then facing the Islamist threat if there was no Pakistan, which is now facing this existential threat. So, I always argue that we need to do everything to strengthen the sense of Pakistan's security."

Karnad implied that if not for Pakistan, India could very well have been facing this existential threat from Islamists.

Thus, he argued that resolving the Kashmir [ Images ] issue was imperative for India, if only to strengthen Pakistan's security. In turn, without the albatross of Pakistan hanging around its neck, India would have the chance to acquire great power status.

Karnad said he had advocated that India "unilaterally remove all medium range missiles from the Pakistani border. I call them SCBMs -- security confidence building measures. I have been pushing the Indian government to do it."

"But we have a great flaw in not doing the right thing at the right time. We are remiss. Our security is not going to be compromised one bit if we unilaterally demilitarise the border. What can Pakistan do? Nothing," he said.

Karnad lamented that "both India and Pakistan's armies are turned inward -- seeing each other as a threat. There is mutual navel-gazing, when India should be turning outward."

He asked, "Doesn't Pakistan's existential problems really become India's existential problem? It is in the same region."

He also warned, "Ultimately if this nuclear threat does emanate and the Islamists do acquire Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal, we'll have to work together."

Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC


Hes speaking d truth n giving US INDINS an idea f d way things r @ present . We need to realise wat hes saying R FACTS n work hard to make our place amongst d TOP LEAGUE NATIONS !
 
Its true that in order for a country to be powerful, it must have a strong economy and advanced technology. But it must have a way to protect its wealth and culture. So this is done with military and deplomacy.

The war in the future actually would be more limited to conventional exchanges as there is still mutual assured destruction between the powerful nations. As these powerful nations has money and wealth, it won't want to be nuked. So the less poweful ones must identify the criteria that it would use nuclear weapon so its not pushed to that limit. Unless, of course, the more powerful country would even suffer nuclear death to push that limit. If that is the case, we would all be in trouble

That is the my point. Once a war is started, you cannot limit it. No one wants to loose, hence everyone would use all possible means. Besides, no powerful country would like to go to war with another one. Its not 19th century, now you have to give justification to the rest of the world (ofcourse, if you are US, you don't have too!). So you need to have valid cause and support. There wont be any war bw even moderately powerful nations.

And India has began developing armaments. In a decade or so, she will be developing all the major arms at home.
 
And India has began developing armaments. In a decade or so, she will be developing all the major arms at home.

With the current trend, in 10 years, India would be surviving on ToT from abroad more so than today.

everyone wants to sell India advanced tech that India would not be able to technically absorb. With the rate people want to sell to India, maybe even China would have difficulty absorb.
 
It is quite a realistic assesment of Indian situation. Karanad is known for his bold and straight to the face assesments and statements, for long now.

What I personally believe is that millitary power alone would not take us to the league of leaders. It is the over all development for the masses that would lay the foundation for a properous and POWERFULL India!
 
With the current trend, in 10 years, India would be surviving on ToT from abroad more so than today.

everyone wants to sell India advanced tech that India would not be able to technically absorb. With the rate people want to sell to India, maybe even China would have difficulty absorb.

Well whatever level it wil be at that time... but it will be a good amount of domestic contribution. no one can predict the exact amount...

In case of China the leading worry is to improve its manufacturing...its worry will remain that its producs are low quality and not upto wes/rus standards and it will remain so at least till 2040 or so......

India will have comparatively easy means to improve its technology furthur and will maintain its qualitative/technological edge always....
Overall with India improving its domestic manufacturing also things will be gr8...but China needs to be worried over its poor technological advancement....the GAP will narrow down with time and India will take a lead as soon as its manufacturig is upto the mark(comparable to CHina or better than them)....because technology wise all the weapons of India will be the best of the best....
 
With the current trend, in 10 years, India would be surviving on ToT from abroad more so than today.

everyone wants to sell India advanced tech that India would not be able to technically absorb. With the rate people want to sell to India, maybe even China would have difficulty absorb.

May be. But what matters is that it will have enough to defend herself. Technology will grow, the rate will drastically improve as soon as the private sector recognizes its importance. In many fields, it has and effects are visible. Economy, this is where there is long way to go. Increasing the GDP wouldn't be that great a challenge than to spread its fruits to each citizen. A superpower should be such that all its citizens should have the share in the big economy, must have the basic needs fulfilled, and have opportunities to grow and prosper. It would be a real challenge for India, to rise half its population to such a level.

Defense technologies, indigenous or imported, just need enough to defend herself. And they would be.

And one more thing that come to mind when thinking about japan. A super power also needs to have global influence. Cultural, diplomatic. Cause japan is a huge economy technologically, no doubt leading. But do we see it as superpower?!!
 
Well whatever level it wil be at that time... but it will be a good amount of domestic contribution. no one can predict the exact amount...

In case of China the leading worry is to improve its manufacturing...its worry will remain that its producs are low quality and not upto wes/rus standards and it will remain so at least till 2040 or so......

India will have comparatively easy means to improve its technology furthur and will maintain its qualitative/technological edge always....
Overall with India improving its domestic manufacturing also things will be gr8...but China needs to be worried over its poor technological advancement....the GAP will narrow down with time and India will take a lead as soon as its manufacturig is upto the mark(comparable to CHina or better than them)....because technology wise all the weapons of India will be the best of the best....

Militarily, I do not believe India has qualitative/technological edge vs China except for a few recently imported technology. This edge will decrease greatly as China's technology gradually catching up to and supassing Russia and western Europe in the next twenty years. The only way India has a chance of stay ahead of China in technology is by focusing on US made weaponry, such as Japan.

In terms of domestic manufacturing, India need to concerntrate on building a descent rifle and other low tech items. Once that is done, it can focus on more advance items. The airplane is a good example of building a light weight item then the more heavy weight plane. On other hand, India made a big mistake of not trying to build a smaller diesel electric sub first before going for the nuclear subs.

Finally, why do you said that India's technology wise, all the weapons will be best of best? Are you trying out for a job to be Kim Jung Il English propoganda minister? I don't think that pays as well as the job your have right now. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
May be. But what matters is that it will have enough to defend herself. Technology will grow, the rate will drastically improve as soon as the private sector recognizes its importance. In many fields, it has and effects are visible. Economy, this is where there is long way to go. Increasing the GDP wouldn't be that great a challenge than to spread its fruits to each citizen. A superpower should be such that all its citizens should have the share in the big economy, must have the basic needs fulfilled, and have opportunities to grow and prosper. It would be a real challenge for India, to rise half its population to such a level.

Defense technologies, indigenous or imported, just need enough to defend herself. And they would be.

And one more thing that come to mind when thinking about japan. A super power also needs to have global influence. Cultural, diplomatic. Cause japan is a huge economy technologically, no doubt leading. But do we see it as superpower?!!

You provide a good analysis of what a country need and how it could acquire the technology. The problem is that with this approach, it would set India further back technologically. However, as you say, India doesn't aim for superiority. A good example of why the article that produced this thread was written
 
Well whatever level it wil be at that time... but it will be a good amount of domestic contribution. no one can predict the exact amount...

In case of China the leading worry is to improve its manufacturing...its worry will remain that its producs are low quality and not upto wes/rus standards and it will remain so at least till 2040 or so......

India will have comparatively easy means to improve its technology furthur and will maintain its qualitative/technological edge always....
Overall with India improving its domestic manufacturing also things will be gr8...but China needs to be worried over its poor technological advancement....the GAP will narrow down with time and India will take a lead as soon as its manufacturig is upto the mark(comparable to CHina or better than them)....because technology wise all the weapons of India will be the best of the best....

Do you think China needs to wait until 2040 to improve her technology and quality? Look at the high speed train we build!!!!

India "will" narrow the gap with China? No one will know!!!! Please do not out in such a certain way.

From what i see Indian weapon technology is as diverse as her people. Using "best of the best" words make me mushy!
 
You provide a good analysis of what a country need and how it could acquire the technology. The problem is that with this approach, it would set India further back technologically. However, as you say, India doesn't aim for superiority. A good example of why the article that produced this thread was written

Acquiring tech from abroad isn't going to hamper her own technological growth. Big hurdles in India's (tech) growth is its work culture, attitude of people, and some govt policies, not the lack of brain. India began developing arms years later than China. Private industries have just recently began to realize the importance of research as foreign companies coming. Things have changed in past decade, and changed in a big way. Growth will be much more rapid than before.
Though China inputs much more money than India, we fulfill this deficit by foreign collaboration. Collaborations don't mean that we cant do that. But they greatly reduce the time and money required to do that, by eliminating the need of re-inventing the wheel. They compensate for lack of resources. I do agree, there is no replacement for money, and what money can achieve. So China will be far ahead for long time.

India doesn't aim for superiority, cause it cant. Not now, not for few decades. It's a bitter truth for us.
 
Back
Top Bottom