What is India?

[muse]

India's global ambition and the nuclear deal
Unlike China, India doesn't have a clear vision for its role in the world.
By Manjari Chatterjee Miller
from the July 25, 2008 edition


Cambridge, Mass. - For three decades, India has craved a nuclear energy deal that would bring prestige and advanced technology. Yet when the coalition government declared this week that it would move ahead with one, it triggered a crisis and a no-confidence motion in Parliament, which it had to scramble to survive.

Watching this drama unfold, the international community may be forgiven for feeling a little baffled. After all, the landmark Indo-US nuclear deal is immensely advantageous for India. It allows India to buy nuclear technology from the US in exchange for abiding by International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It would give India's growing economy much-needed energy without endangering its strategic capabilities or influencing its sovereignty in foreign policy.

To understand the political anguish and hand-wringing in India over a nuclear deal with the US, one needs to understand a very simple fact. Unlike China, its rival rising power, India lacks a grand strategy or concept of its role in the world. India thinks it should be a great power but has no clear vision of its path. In contrast, China thinks it is a great power and expends a great deal of time and energy outlining its "peaceful rise" to itself and the world.

China's rise on the world stage is constantly discussed by Chinese academics, journalists, policy experts, political leaders, and the elite. This discourse emphasizes that despite China's growing power and the need for resources and markets, it will not pursue militarization and hegemony as Germany and Japan did before and during World War II.

Rather, it intends to rise peacefully and harmoniously. Simultaneously, this idea draws on the concept of tianxia ("all under heaven") which, simply put, promotes order over chaos and has been key to understanding governance in China for the past 2,000 years. With defined ideas of the world and their role in the world, China acts like a confident great power and pursues its international goals with single-minded zeal.

The last time India had a defined concept of its international role, Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister. Nehru made some notable foreign policy mistakes, particularly his disastrous Forward Policy that resulted in the 1962 war and bitter defeat at the hands of China.

But there is no doubt the man was a visionary. Designed by Nehru, the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) was a domestic and international triumph for India. It was poor, struggling to develop economically and militarily, but there was a sense of purpose and national pride that it had, at least, cornered the moral market in international relations and assumed the leadership of the developing nations.

Post Nehru and post cold war, India failed to adapt or abandon NAM, even when it had little significance. Nor, unlike China after Mao, did any Indian leader articulate an alternate ideology of the world and India's role in it.

It is, therefore, not surprising that such bitter ideological divisions now exist in India. What is the way forward for India as a would-be great power? Does signing a nuclear deal with the US make its old antagonist its new BFF? Does it mean that even paying lip service to the long-obsolete idea of NAM is no longer possible? Or does great power mean, as the communists suggest, proudly rejecting the nuclear deal and thereby showing the international community who's boss?

Even as the nuclear deal steams ahead, unless India articulates a vision for itself and gains the confidence of a great power, such splits will continue to plague its international relationships and negotiations.

• Manjari Chatterjee Miller is a post-doctoral fellow at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University and an affiliate of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. She is working on a book about Indian and Chinese foreign policy.

 

[Flintlock]

Even China has no clear plan for how it plans to exercise its newfound power.

The simple difference is: In India, the discussion happens out in the open, giving the appearance of confusion (which it is), whereas in China, the discussion and political tug-of-war happens behind closed doors, thus giving the appearance of order and calm.

Oh, and the Chinese are far more effiicient at it, as a result.

 

[muse]

No point going defensive. The author, an Indian academic acknowledges that there is debate and discussion in China, she also acknowledges that there is little in India -- just because you choose to be ignorant of the debate and discussion in China does not mean it is not taking place, won't you agree?

Afterll, just because you do not acknowledge the sun does not mean there is no sun, won't you agree?

Instead of going defensive, a more productive response might be to actually engage in the debate and discussion, won't you agree?

 

[Flintlock]

No point going defensive. The author, an Indian academic acknowledges that there is debate and discussion in China, she also acknowledges that there is little in India -- just because you choose to be ignorant of the debate and discussion in China does not mean it is not taking place, won't you agree?

Afterll, just because you do not acknowledge the sun does not mean there is no sun, won't you agree?

Instead of going defensive, a more productive response might be to actually engage in the debate and discussion, won't you agree?

I'm not being defensive....I just don't agree with what the article is saying.

You're the one treating the article like a holy book by comparing it with the sun.

 

[muse]

So you won't agree with the learned Indian academic? Listen, instead of going rejectionist consider this, either the learned academic is ignorant that there is no debate or discussion of China's role in the world inside China or you are, Won't you agree to the sense of this?

Now the learned Indian academic suggests that the role of China in the world fits under the framework of Tianxia -- what framework ought the role of India in the World fit within? How should or ought India see itself? What role should it play? How will the nuclear deal help it play that role?

Enough rejectionist mode, defensive mode and osterich mode -- just be open to seeing whether we can answer these questions or pose better questions that will helps understand.

 

[Flintlock]

So you won't agree with the learned Indian academic? Listen, instead of going rejectionist consider this, either the learned academic is ignorant that there is no debate or discussion of China's role in the world inside China or you are, Won't you agree to the sense of this?

This is not an empirical discussion. The 'learned academic' is simply presenting his/her views, and I don't agree with them.

There are several blatantly wrong statements, the first one being that only Chinese 'elite' discuss China's role as a world power. Anyone who is aware of world affairs knows that there is a great deal of academic debate within India on the role of India in the world.

There is no anguished 'hand-wringing' either. It is simply a tug-of-war between different opinions on what direction India should be taking.
It happens in every parliamentary democracy, as the respected academic here should know.

Now the learned Indian academic suggests that the role of China in the world fits under the framework of Tianxia -- what framework ought the role of India in the World fit within? How should or ought India see itself? What role should it play? How will the nuclear deal help it play that role?

Indian thinkers have always seen India as a peaceful civilization, and our concept as a nation is Unity in Diversity.
There is a vast corpus of material available on the principles of the Indian state and its role in the world.

Any historian worth his weight will realize that the Chinese rise has been anything but peaceful. The last 60 years in China have seen an unbelievable amount of violence and bloodshed.

Also, I personally see no point in philosophical terms like 'tianxia' and the like. Chinese foreign policy is guided by nothing other than realpolitik and China's best self-interest. I'll be damned if there is an overarching moral guide to their underhand dealings in Sudan.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The ''Indian'' academic should also look up Shu and Shi.

She will find the answer.

 

[muse]

Indian internet defence Bn - lol - wake up ladies!! - no amount of No, No, and No will change facts - the sun will continue to exist and will not disappear just because you refuse to acknowledge it -- you need new instructions.

How to engage arguments Indian style:

Refuse to acknowdge the validity of the argument.

Attack the individual who is presenting the argument.

Go on the offensive - talk about things not in the orginal positon, Shu shi - lol

Seems the learned academic is right, Indian do not know what their role in the world ought to be because they refuse to debate and discuss the issue - you 2 are prime examples. You think you do India a service - perhaps it's good that u do -- try figuring that one out. With Indians like you around, your adversaries will keep you busy thinking you are being of service while they move on to their business -- won't you give reason a chance?

 

[Flintlock]

Indian internet defence Bn - lol - wake up ladies!! - no amount of No, No, and No will change facts - the sun will continue to exist and will not disappear just because you refuse to acknowledge it -- you need new instructions.

How to engage arguments Indian style:

Refuse to acknowdge the validity of the argument.

Attack the individual who is presenting the argument.

Go on the offensive - talk about things not in the orginal positon, Shu shi - lol

Seems the learned academic is right, Indian do not know what their role in the world ought to be because they refuse to debate and discuss the issue - you 2 are prime examples. You think you do India a service - perhaps it's good that u do -- try figuring that one out. With Indians like you around, your adversaries will keep you busy thinking you are being of service while they move on to their business -- won't you give reason a chance?

Muse honestly, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. If you want to complain about Indians in general, go to the feedback form on the Government of India website.

Here, I even gave the link:

GOI Directory Feedback Form

 

[muse]

Assasino

refer to my earlier post -- The academic is right, Indian are confused abut their global role because they have people who refuse to engage in debate and discussion - you are a good example of this.

Instaed of exploring the issue you choose to suggest no such issue exists. And worse still you think you are doing a service, in fact you have only proved the academic right.

You choose to shift the academic's position - and again you prove her right, by shoing that the discussion is uncomfortable and unnerving for for some indians

 

[Flintlock]

Assasino

refer to my earlier post -- The academic is right, Indian are confused abut their global role because they have people who refuse to engage in debate and discussion - you are a good example of this.

So what is China's global role, which the Chinese seem to be so sure about?

Instaed of exploring the issue you choose to suggest no such issue exists. And worse still you think you are doing a service, in fact you have only proved the academic right.

What is the issue? The article is confused, and the author is mixing-up ideology with vision, and democracy with confusion.

You choose to shift the academic's position - and again you prove her right, by shoing that the discussion is uncomfortable and unnerving for for some indians

Please do explain how I am shifting the position.

Jeez....it seems that you are the one completely convinced that Indians are incapable of debate and introspection, as you have been saying earlier.
Your mind is simply twisting my posts to validate your opinion about Indians in general.

 

[Flintlock]

In any case, let me concentrate on what is discussion-worthy in the article.

India's foreign policy seemed stable under Nehru simply because Nehru was in power for such a long time. Since then, India has seen a host of coalition governments, which by definition are forced to accomodate all, and cannot take any big strides in one direction.

However, since the BJP came to power in 2001, India has gradually eroded its forced political isolation ala Nehru, and tried to engage with the world's sole superpower.
Naturally, such a tectonic shift would not take place without stiff resistance from the old guard.

The problem with India isn't lack of vision, but an excess of visions.

The Vote of Confidence was a rare event in India, which may usher in a new era of more decisive governance, and slowly allow the political scene to coalesce into just two different visions, which would compete for votes every 5 years.

 

[Logic note]

So you won't agree with the learned Indian academic? Listen, instead of going rejectionist consider this, either the learned academic is ignorant that there is no debate or discussion of China's role in the world inside China or you are, Won't you agree to the sense of this?

Now the learned Indian academic suggests that the role of China in the world fits under the framework of Tianxia -- what framework ought the role of India in the World fit within? How should or ought India see itself? What role should it play? How will the nuclear deal help it play that role?

Enough rejectionist mode, defensive mode and osterich mode -- just be open to seeing whether we can answer these questions or pose better questions that will helps understand.

Dear Muse .. I think you dont understand the Meaning of Democracy ..
so called millions of Learned experts can express views doesnt mean they are aware of all facts ..
Her Point of view is nothing but her long nose poking without understanding anything about the facts and the reasons because she is not in system .
Learned" doesnt Mean "wisdom" , it means "perspective" and perspective is not "Truth" .

 

[muse]

Assasino

I'm glad you have chosen to not go defensive and instead seek to understand, I appreciate this demonstration openness to reason:

The learned academics points out:


"Unlike China, its rival rising power, India lacks a grand strategy or concept of its role in the world. India thinks it should be a great power but has no clear vision of its path. In contrast, China thinks it is a great power and expends a great deal of time and energy outlining its "peaceful rise" to itself and the world.

the learned academic suggests that the reason India seems to have no clear vision is the lack of discussion and debate about this role:

China's rise on the world stage is constantly discussed by Chinese academics, journalists, policy experts, political leaders, and the elite. This discourse emphasizes that despite China's growing power and the need for resources and markets, it will not pursue militarization and hegemony as Germany and Japan did before and during World War II.

Rather, it intends to rise peacefully and harmoniously. Simultaneously, this idea draws on the concept of tianxia ("all under heaven") which, simply put, promotes order over chaos and has been key to understanding governance in China for the past 2,000 years. With defined ideas of the world and their role in the world, China acts like a confident great power and pursues its international goals with single-minded zeal.

The learned academic here has simplified Tianxia, so even you may understand it in the way she intends you to. She then goes on to explain one of the reasons why India does not have a clear visionof her role in the world, since the last time India did have a vision of it's role, it failed:

The last time India had a defined concept of its international role, Jawaharlal Nehru was the prime minister. Nehru made some notable foreign policy mistakes, particularly his disastrous Forward Policy that resulted in the 1962 war and bitter defeat at the hands of China.

But there is no doubt the man was a visionary. Designed by Nehru, the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) was a domestic and international triumph for India. It was poor, struggling to develop economically and militarily, but there was a sense of purpose and national pride that it had, at least, cornered the moral market in international relations and assumed the leadership of the developing nations.

Post Nehru and post cold war, India failed to adapt or abandon NAM, even when it had little significance. Nor, unlike China after Mao, did any Indian leader articulate an alternate ideology of the world and India's role in it.


Now, you suggest that "democracy" is the reason for India's failure - but perhaps it is as the academic suggests that it is the lack of discussion and debate.

Logic

Gentle friend, understanding democracy does not mean being defensive - in democracy there is much debate and discussion - and you are right that learned does not mean wise - on the other hand being defensive does not mean wise or learned , won't you agree??

Why must Indian on this forum begin with the idea that they are being attacked when a short coming or deficiency of any kind is exposed for debate or discussion? Why is it that everything with our Indian friends must be a triumph, must be self congratulatory?

Is that what democracy is or is democracy open and informed discussion and debate? If this problem is not dealt with how will Indian arrive at avision of their role in the world?

 

[Logic note]

Assasino

Logic

Gentle friend, understanding democracy does not mean being defensive - in democracy there is much debate and discussion - and you are right that learned does not mean wise - on the other hand being defensive does not mean wise or learned , won't you agree??

Why must Indian on this forum begin with the idea that they are being attacked when a short coming or deficiency of any kind is exposed for debate or discussion? Why is it that everything with our Indian friends must be a triumph, must be self congratulatory?

Is that what democracy is or is democracy open and informed discussion and debate? If this problem is not dealt with how will Indian arrive at avision of their role in the world?

Dear Friend

in discussion defence about your "point of View" shall not taken as avoiding discussion but it is a part of discussion .