What's new

Unlike China, India prefers being force-fed her destiny

Ganges Zephyr

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 17, 2010
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
The purpose of US defence secretary Leon E Panetta’s two-day visit to New Delhi was very clear. In immediate terms, it was to get India to partially bankroll US and Nato operations in Afghanistan and secure a commitment from New Delhi for a deeper engagement there; and in the longer term, to give effect to his new defence strategy, where India has the role of a ‘lynchpin’ in the proposed US ‘rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific region.’

Panetta is said to have been fairly successful in getting India on board in stepping up training for the Afghan forces, committing more funds for the so-called reconstruction of Afghanistan programme, and, although this is yet to be confirmed, getting a tentative ‘yes’ for the supply of military tanks and armoured vehicles to Afghanistan. The US is clearly worried about Pakistan and while Panetta chose his words a little delicately even he could not get away from describing US relations with the Pakistan military as ‘complicated’ and ‘difficult’ and at times ‘frustrating.’

Despite this, he said, “The US cannot just walk away from that relationship, we have to continue to find areas for engagement.”
Panetta did not choose sensational terms but the problems with Pakistan were underlined, and rather effectively. It thus became all the more imperative for the US to draw India into Afghanistan, and while it has not been able to wear down the Indian resistance to sending troops to Kabul, it clearly hopes to step up the military engagement in terms of training and hardware.
Article continues below the advertisement...



But it is the new defence strategy that needs to be watched as it indicates a major, and finally, formal shift in US policy. Panetta spoke of five crucial elements of the new strategy: one, the US military being developed into a ‘leaner force, casual, deployable, flexible on the cutting edge of technology’; two, rebalancing to shift the focus on two crucial areas, the Pacific-Indian Ocean and the Middle East: “We will expand our military partnerships and our presence in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into the Indian Ocean region and South Asia”; three, decision to maintain presence all over the globe through an ‘innovative’ rotational approach in Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America; four, develop the power to confront more than one enemy at a time; five, investments in cyber space, unmanned systems, special forces, and capability to mobilise when facing crisis situations.

It was clear from this that the US operations will expand significantly in the Pacific-Indian Ocean and it is here that it wants to develop India as a ‘lynchpin’ for joint action.

It has been clear for a long while now that the US has been targeting the Indian Navy to help it monitor the high seas, particularly the South China Sea that has elicited adverse reaction from China on more than one occasion. Panetta claimed that the US vision was for a ‘peaceful Indian Ocean supported by growing Indian capabilities’. And that the US would do its bit through the rotational presence of the Marines in Australia, Littoral Combat ships rotating through Singapore and other US military deployments in the region. He admitted that six of the US 11 aircraft carriers would be deployed in this region.

Panetta maintained that all this was in response to threats from tiny North Korea and other such ‘challenges’. He sought to make light about the perceived threat from China and the fact that the US was keen on developing India as a front-line state against China. He, however, claimed that China had the same goals as US and India and should realise that it too needed to work together to secure the seas and the shores. That China does not think along the same lines is a matter that had external affairs minister SM Krishna visiting Beijing on the exact same days as Panetta was in Delhi. The official Indian position has been to secure the waters for multilateral trade, and for the international community, but it remains to be seen whether it will be able to join an aggressive US military in the seas to ensure this.

The Indian strategic establishment is torn between the glamorous seduction by the US — promise of new aircraft, state-of-the-art technology and assurances like ‘India and the US are the only two countries to operate the P8-I maritime surveillance aircraft’ — and the dry but real China that is breathing down our borders. No seduction or glowing words here, but just the established presence of a growing country in the neighbourhood that would work better as a friend than an enemy. Hence the visible efforts by the Indian government to keep the balance between the two, a task that is becoming more difficult by the day in the absence of clear strategic vision. India is using its usual ad hoc approach to work out the details of these two relationships, and given the fact that both Washington and Beijing are thinking decades ahead, instead of determining its destiny New Delhi is getting into the precarious position of getting its destiny thrust on it.

Panetta’s message articulated at a meeting hosted by IDSA, New Delhi, did not leave much room for the usual hedging by the Indian establishment. He offered military support at all levels in return for Indian partnership in the region. He made it clear that the US was going to expand into the region one way or the other, and despite the funds crunch it was determined to ‘turn the corner’. He outlined recent successes as the US ability to have contained the al-Qaeda, of bringing democratic rule, as he put it, in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, of having impacted on terrorism, and of Nato action in Libya. It was clear that what many in this part of the world term as heinous action constitutes ‘success’ for the US and there has been no rethinking on these policies that are instead being given form and substance in the new defence strategy.

Panetta identified the possible new areas of US intervention as Yemen, North Africa, Somalia — which he said were ridden with terrorism — North Korea, Iran, Middle East and the new battlefield of cyber attacks. He reached out to India to grasp the aggressive US hand.

It is now for this government, crawling under the weight of inertia and stupidity, to decide where its fortunes really lie, and what it needs to do to keep itself from becoming just a beggar waiting for wishes to become horses, and emerging from the morass with its own strategic doctrine aimed at securing Indian interests in the region and the world

Unlike China, India prefers being force-fed her destiny - Analysis - DNA
 
. .
Can someone please TRANSLATE the Title of this thread.

WTF does it mean ? :hitwall:
 
.
My Opinion:

This whole situation should be seen as an opportunity to get the best out of desperate USA
I would like India to work with US on all fronts, this will help us in more than one ways. viz:

Raising our weight on global platform
TOT for cutting edge technology
Shield from aggressive China (yes, I admit, we are too weak to face China as of now)

But,

We should also keep some balance considering our past experience with US and our own neighbours

We should not initiate anything against China or Pakistan (in support of US designs) to be clean and transparent
We should be equally or more engaged with our age old friends Russia

Share your views friends

Can someone please TRANSLATE the Title of this thread.

WTF does it mean ? :hitwall:

I suppose the title means that India has no clear strategic vision and depends on the designs being created by other superpowers like US of A and China
 
.
India shud not play "democracy ke thikedaar" role like the US do. They have embarrased themselves all over world be it cuba,vietnam,afganistan etc
 
. . .
My Opinion:

This whole situation should be seen as an opportunity to get the best out of desperate USA
I would like India to work with US on all fronts, this will help us in more than one ways. viz:

Raising our weight on global platform
TOT for cutting edge technology
Shield from aggressive China (yes, I admit, we are too weak to face China as of now)

But,

We should also keep some balance considering our past experience with US and our own neighbours

We should not initiate anything against China or Pakistan (in support of US designs) to be clean and transparent
We should be equally or more engaged with our age old friends Russia

Share your views friends



I suppose the title means that India has no clear strategic vision and depends on the designs being created by other superpowers like US of A and China

You are correct. We should not follow US dictate against China/Pakistan. We are living in this region,not US. They can pull out we can't. We have to live with them. And it's better to live in peace.
 
.
the rich amercians greedily look at poor Indians' pocket, they want to grab every rupee in there.

WTF is this Panetta, he's blind never seeing billions of Indians live on half dollar a day?
 
. .
umm... we do to an extent in our neighbourhood , in promoting democracy in afghanistan and now Myanmar ( something we should have done earlier ). beyond our neighbourhood we don't .

Unlike in Afghanistan , Myanmar Junta wasn't interested in democracy. One can't force democracy, as its becomes self-contradictory.
 
.
the rich amercians greedily look at poor Indians' pocket, they want to grab every rupee in there.

WTF is this Panetta, he's blind never seeing billions of Indians live on half dollar a day?

I agree with you on this. Rich Americans should look at Rich Pakistanis who live on million dollars a day :lol:
 
.
Ya man! we Indian are poor and hungry,I am hungry too.Can I eat few pakistani?

yeah, we got a few Americans in the backyard of Afghanistan. they are fat and juicy, definitely your favorite.

Ya man! we Indian are poor and hungry,I am hungry too.Can I eat few pakistani?

yeah, we got a few Americans in the backyard of Afghanistan. they are fat and juicy, definitely your favorite.
 
.
Don't completely agree with her except for the fact that India's foreign policy seems reactionary as opposed to being pro-active and assertive. But frankly, given the current scenario where US is trying to extend its influence in Asia-Pacific, it makes sense for India to be inert rather than get onto a wagon. Both US and China are vital for India's economic interests which eventually extend to influence regional politics and a nation's standing in the world.

Ad Hoc measures may not seem very pretty to people used to a clear goal and sight but frankly it's the need of the hour.
 
.
if india joins the US in containing china in any way, shape or form, we wont let india get away with it without significant consequences, we have very long memories. we will make sure india suffers and disrupt india's development in a major way. india is very chaotic internally with many races seeking independence. if india is willing to hurt and stop china's development, then we will return the favour.
american empire will eventually collapse through debt just like all other previous empires (its already weakening).
but india will have to live with china for centuries upon centuries.

india is not an enemy of china, but you sure can make an enemy out of us for a very very long time(just like japan).

besides, india will be in the same position we are in when india reaches a level of development to us. india will seek to expand its influence and other countries will take india as a threat (just look at pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka already dislike india).
the US will never allow any power to surpass them, the second india starts to have divergent views from america, the americans will form new alliances to contain india.

india is best advised to stay neutral and have good relations with both countries.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom