Pakistan, India and the United States

November 9, 2009

 

While attention has almost entirely been focused on America’s difficult relationship with Pakistan – a writer in Foreign Policy magazine called it the world’s most dysfunctional relationship – India and the United States have quietly gone ahead and completed the largest military exercise ever undertaken by New Delhi with a foreign army.

The exercise named Yudh Abyhas 2009 (or practice for war)  and conducted in northern India involved tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and helicopter-borne infantry. The U.S. army deployed 17 Strykers,  its eight-wheeled armoured vehicle, in the largest deployment of the newest vehicle outside of Iraq and Afghanistan for Pacific Rim forces, the military said.

“This exercise indeed is a landmark. For the Indian Army, this is the biggest we have done with any foreign army,” Indian army director general of military operations, Lt. Gen. A.S. Sekhon said.

Since they began exercising together over the past decade after being on opposite sides of the Cold War, India and the United States have steadily advanced their military relationship. As the two big powers in the Indian Ocean, they  have had steadily complex naval exercises and this year, for added measure, brought in the Japanese navy too in a three-way exercise, a move which must not have been lost on the Chinese.

Indeed, as Robert Haddick, who edits the Small Wars Journal, writes in his column at Foreign Policy that the one defence relationship  in Asia that is progressing well for the United States is that involving India. It’s not trouble-free especially with a prickly power such as India, but it stands out compared with the troubled security relationships the United States has with Pakistan and China, the author notes.

U.S. military engagement with China remains a work in progress. As Admiral Timothy Keating, the former military commander for the U.S. Pacific Command told the Financial Times in an interview last month he didn’t have direct phone contacts for his counterparts in the People’s Liberation Army, increasing the potential for misunderstanding.

“I don’t have their [senior Chinese military officials'] phone number. I can’t pick up the phone and wish them happy birthday. I don’t mean to be glib about it . . . [But] we don’t enjoy the sort of communication that I have with almost every other military leader in Asia,” he said.

And what of Pakistan ? As noted in this blog, before only 16 percent of Pakistanis surveyed have a favorable view of the United States and 13 percent have confidence in President Barack Obama, according to the Pew Research Center.

Such a deep distrust and rage  severely complicates the relationship,  and often blinds Pakistan at its own loss, a Toronto-based analyst Sadiq Saleem writes. He says the visceral opposition to the U.S. aid bill was a case in point.

“Pakistanis as a nation are riled up en masse over the supposed ‘loss of sovereignty’ over the fact that our ally of 55 years decided to give us unconditional economic aid – in addition to conditional military aid.  At $1.5 billion per year the Enhanced Partnership for Pakistan Act 2009 would make Pakistan the single largest recipient of US government development aid in the world – greater than the Israel economic aid package.”

But a combination of politicians and journalists have called the aid as anti-Pakistan because of the conditions attached to it. The big worry, according to Saleem, is that at some point Washington may get tired of dealing with a difficult partner.

“If our anti-Americanism continues the day might come when the Americans do not see the value of their Pakistani relationship. I, and anyone else who points this out, is not an American agent but a voice of sanity in an environment of anger and hate,” he says.

Will America turn to India, where it still enjoys support and admiration among ordinary people even more than government leaders ? 

[Reuters picture of the exercise, and below a U.S. military release of the exercise]

Comments

Seems logical. Why would the USA want to continue its relationship with Pakistan if the anti-Americanism continues. Problem is that ‘once’ the USA leaves Pakistan alone and offers no more aid (money or other), then Pakistan will start to accuse the USA of leaving it in the lurch. Looks like whether the USA leave Pakistan alone or not; it will ALWAYS be hated by Pakistan, even if the USA provided unconditional aid.

Seems like Pakistan wants money and other aid from the USA with no conditions and no questions asked with ‘cheesy grins and handshakes’.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Seems like Pakistan wants money and other aid from the USA with no conditions and no questions asked with ‘cheesy grins and handshakes’.
- Posted by bulletfish

But the USA was also blamed by Pakistanis for giving unconditional, unaccounted aid to Pak military during Musharraf. Pakistanis are also blaming USA for not being around between 1990-2001.

So USA will be always blamed for someone else’s failures, no matter what USA does or doesn’t.

Posted by Smith | Report as abusive
 

I wouldn’t make too much of the exercise. India is a rapidly growing market for arms and other defence products. The US needs to play in exercises once in a while if it wants a piece of that pie.

And comparing Indo-US and Sino-US relations is very unfair. India and the US don’t have territory abutting each other (Guam is close enough to bug the Chinese), they aren’t competing for influence in the same region (Asia-Pacific), and their interests are really odds in most places around the world.

The only place they may not see eye-to-eye is South Asia (specifically over Pakistan). This means that while the relationship will grow, there is a limit. As long as the US is heavily involved in Afghanistan and heavily backs Pakistan (though the Pakistanis seem to think the West doesn’t do much for them), the relationship will have a natural limit. But in 5, 10 or 20 years, the US will pull out of Afghanistan and Pakistan will matter a lot less to them. At that point, relations with India will soar. That’s why Pakistanis, who dream of the US ‘failing in’ or leaving Afghanistan, should be carefully what they wish for.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Sanjeev,

You forgot to include another important factor into the equation to balance it. China is a huge deciding factor in this region. Right now the US is at the receiving end as far as money is concerned. China has a huge financial clout and it is the most powerful nation militarily speaking, in this region. Pakistan is a huge leverage for China against India. It will not allow that leverage to be weakened. So if the US tilts more towards India, one might see China strengthening its support of Pakistan to balance it. China has already started rattling India regarding Arunachal Pradesh. My gut feeling tells me that China might engage India in a small level military confrontation to “teach India a lesson.” I won’t be surprised if China rolls its tanks into Indian held Kashmir and hand the region off to Pakistan just to rub India in. In that scenario it’s aim would be to watch the moves the US makes. If the US confines itself to mere protests and diplomacy, it will be misconstrued as a sign of weakness. It might try to send a message that China is the new global power and the Western powers will need to accept that reality. Whacking India will be used as an example of that. China knows that neither country will engage in a nuclear conflict because it is counter productive to both their long term goals. India will protest and grumble, but won’t be able to do much towards Chinese aggression. The US, already facing resistance at home against its Afghan operations might become indecisive in its strategy regarding China-India conflict. It will be interesting to see what materializes in the near future.

 

“Pakistanis as a nation are riled up en masse over the supposed ‘loss of sovereignty’ over the fact that our ally of 55 years decided to give us unconditional economic aid – in addition to conditional military aid…But a combination of politicians and journalists have called the aid as anti-Pakistan because of the conditions attached to it.” – Sadiq Saleem

The Pakistanis never let a good deed by a friend and ally go unpunished or unappreciated.

The US gives them more in aid than anybody else. The Chinese make token investments, and use Chinese labour for any projects they build, refuse to bail Pakistan out when they are bankrupt, sell them military equipment at full prices that are one generation behind, yet the Pakistanis call the Chinese their ‘all-weather’ friends and the public gets riled up with anti-Americanism.

Maybe the lesson here is that the West should give less aid to Pakistan, build nothing in Pakistan with local labour, demand full prices for third rate military arms, and let millions starve when they mismanage the economy and go bankrupt (a repeat occurence in Pakistan), and then they will love us, the way they love the Chinese.

The relationship between Pakistan and the US (and to a lesser extent the West) is starting to resemble that of a battered wife with a philandering abusive husband. He claims his mistress loves him more but demands that the wife pay all his bills. He is disloyal to her but claims it’s all her fault because she doesn’t do enough for him (even though he’s a deadbeat who doesn’t work). Finally, he gets into drunken brawls with his neighbours and when his wife rescues him, complains that she secretly supports the neighbours.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

I wish every Pakistani would read Sadiq Saleem’s article. Brilliant and honest analysis of the US-Pakistan relationship and the budding India-US friendship.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

US understands that India would never be a threat to its interests and has never had any trouble acknowledging that. In the case of Pakistan, it has been a prodigal child, a renegade and above all the epicentre of terrorism world-wide. It has been the major exporter of trouble. Now, faced with a do-or-die situation, it is going back to US for more arms, ammunitions and money. Needless to say, it is a failed state. India should never be looked thro’ the prism of Pakistan. If at all anything, I am sure every Indian would pity the situation in which every Pakistan finds himself in. A situation brought about by the actions of its own. What goes around, comes around. On the other hand, Chinese are always nervous with historic trust deficit with any race. No wonder, though ideologically they were aligned with USSR, no trust was placed on them by the Russians.

Posted by Natarajan | Report as abusive
 

What I believe firstly Pakistanis need to help thereselves!I am sorry to say but maybe democracy is NOT for Pakistanis,as the only person who can standup whohave money, power, control and a normal person off the street can not even stand for the elections. We have the same crocodiels,will get oneway ticket to Pakistan as soon as they lost will go back toDubai/London/New York to live with rest of their family once they have looted enough if there was anything in the national treasure in the first place.

How much trust can ordinary Pakistanis have with Mr 100% as the President of Pakistan..NONE! Even though the Kerry-Lugar bill is there to help ordinary Pakistanis hopefully with whatever condiction end of the day,if bank given you loan they do that on their condictions. So I see justification why USA asks Pakistan to have some sort of check where those dollars are being spent.

Now why the Anti Americanism, well simply to do with the double standard of the West in reagrsd to Paletien/Israel conflict thats the only thing that makes my blood boil or any other Muslims. But than I dont expect the Christians to Liberta ethe palestinians surely its got to be the Palestinins first than the Arabs and than maybe we have some responsibily in the form of morral supprt. Surely we cant be more palestinians than the palestinians so to cleat the air to us Muslims tahts what shows the clear double standards.

Solve that and the extremist will be left with no properganda tools, as to Afghinstan send in the armies from muslim countries that will less material for the Taliban to brainwash oridinart Afghans or Pakistanis or any muslim.

I agree with one thing we are a rented state, specialy to the Saudi wahabism whio are the real cause of all the Islamic extremism lets not forgott all the 9/11 hijackers were saudis. But I did not even see one bomb being droped near the saudis kings palace to send a signal what he is doing is wrong….

Posted by Majid | Report as abusive
 

Sanjeev,

I asked a question about Chinese factor in this whole thing. Looks like you deleted it. Please discuss what you think about Chinese view point on the whole thing. The US tilt towards India, joint military exercise might be making them more uncomfortable than Pakistan.

 

Please ignore my previous request. I did not see it appear initially.

 

Sanjeev,

The US-Pakistan relationship, from the beginning, was dysfunctional. It’s not a new thing. The anti-American under current in Pakistan is also not new; although it is so out in the open that even a Martian could see it. There is little America can do to change it, however.

India is modernizing its armed forces and under going joint excercises with many countries. The US happens to be one of them. I will not read too much in to the Indo-US joint excercise.

Posted by Nikhil | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan’s politicians have been fooling the Yanks for the past 4 decades. Pakistan is essentially a kleptocracy whether the Army or the civilians “rule” that benighted country.
Every cent that the Americans give is stolen. They are all thieves who spout terms like “sovereignity” “self-respect” and “independence”.
The Amercicans, especially under the moronic guidence of Bush and other Republicans have been taken for a hell of a ride.
Pakistan is disintegrating slowly but steadily and soon the whole rotten structure will collapse and a dozen “Little Pakistans” will infest the region.

Posted by Ben | Report as abusive
 

How can a beggar nation talk of Sovereignity? If the American’s withdraw life-support for Pakistan, they will implode with a big bang.
They are fed, clothed, protected and kept alive by US charity.
The US does it so that the mad mullahs of Multan will not get their hands on the nuclear weapons, or at least so they hope.
What the US does not realize is that the Taliban, the ISI, the terrorists and the Army are all one and the same. They are putting on this elaborate charade to keep milking the Americans.
Pretty soon this is bound to come to an end and all hell will break loose!

Posted by Menon | Report as abusive
 

The US does it so that the mad mullahs of Multan will not get their hands on the nuclear weapons, or at least so they hope.
-Posted by Menon

The nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the mad mullahs of Multan. It is more likely that they would hold a loaded gun to the head of those with thier finger on the button. However, kidnapping people and holding for ransom is so ’1980s Hezbollah old school’ and time consuming and it eats into the terrorism budget.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Sharing all the resources is required at some degree of trust, if it fails then where is the scope for building relationships. Managing relatioship across boundaries is very important for any nation, after all we are all human beings need to have respect for each other. For eg how EC has uplifted small nations in its territory, there should be competion for growth and not for terrorism. Need education and awareness in many regions and countries across the Globe. Let us plan for prosperity and peace by utilizing support from developed nations. Do not fight for the sake of destroying the human kinds on the earth.

 

US assuming itself as the Global Policeman would like to establish its presence any where in the World to sort out conflicts arising between two adversaries. For it to maintain effective logistical support for its troops employed/deployed, it needs bases for its Navy,Air Force and the Army.During the Cold War period it needed bases closure to USSR and Pakistan readily offered such bases for a consideration, in the form of Military and Economical Aid. Pakistan does not have a strong industrial infrastructure. It depends on other countries for anything and everything.The similar bartering continued through Russian mis adventure in Afghanistan, and later American Invassion of Iraq for oilwealth in the garb of neutralising WMD(WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION),then after 9/11 attack by Al Qoaida pursuit of the percieved enemy in Afghanistan to the present day events to control Taliban(both the good&bad).Right through the Nineties and till today, India had been harping on the point that Pakistan was and is a ROGUE STATE,sponsoring terrorism to suit its needs.All the cries of India did not sink well with the Americans untill the WTC Disaster which opened their eyes and now they are very much aware where the terror producing factories lie.The same will continue to be so untill the UNO is an independent authority to take action on any erring nation rather than the USA dictating and being the UNO and commiting Human Rights Violations throughout our great Earth.Democracy need not be the best form of govrnance. Its that form of governance which nurtures PEACE is welcomed by the humanity as a whole.

 

Chandrasekar writes: “US assuming itself as the Global Policeman would like to establish its presence any where in the World to sort out conflicts arising between two adversaries.”

I’d consider the US as a benevolent super power. It is like having benevolent dictators. Not everything the US does is perfect, but in an overall sense, the US has stood for the right thing mostly – fighting slavery off, women’s emancipation, technological leadership and innovation, fighting off the Nazis, fighting off the Soviets and so on. In the bargain, it has to go to bed with bad elements off and on.;Whenever countries lose to the US, they have always been showered with aid and help. A case point would be Japan and Germany. The US helped them recover and they have realized where their goals should be. Most countries, with the exception of Pakistan, which have fallen under the grace of the US have become economically well off. China has come this far because of business with the US. India’s economic miracle is mostly due to US business. South East Asian tiger nations are thriving because of their trade associations with the US. Surely there are countries like Congo, Philippines etc which did not make it far by being US allies. The US has literally carried Europe on its back after world war II and have protected them from Soviet expansion. In all, the US has been the shade under which the world could protect itself from the scorching heat of evil. Pakistan would have been like Malaysia or Singapore, had their leaders turned their attention towards overall progress by using the US help that they have enjoyed all these years. Instead they focused entirely on military might and wasted their efforts in waging wars with India and became obsessed with it. Trust me, without the US, you might be saluting the Nazi flag or praying to Lenin.

 

India is a rapidly growing market for arms and other defence products. The US needs to play in exercises once in a while if it wants a piece of that pie.
-Posted by Keith

That is a serious understatement and misreading of the multi-faceted Indo-US relationship. US-India relations are much more complex than being limited to mere US interest in selling some arms.

Here is The United States and India 3.0 written by Ashley Tellis at Carnegie Endowment in anticipation of Dr.Singh’s state visit to US later this month:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/u s_india_3.0.pdf

If you don’t have patience to read the entire document, scroll down to Box 3 on page 10 which outlines the diversity of US-India interests and engagement.

Also as Mauryan says China is a huge factor in this, which Mr. Tellis also elaborates on in the document above. India should and will try to have cordial relations with China and shouldn’t do anything to disrupt economic progress.

China can and will support Pakistan but the old Chinese policy of looking other way on Pakistani terrorism in India can not be continued. Post Mumbai 2008 attack, US and other security council members had to arm twist China to agree to ban JuD, front organization for Lashkar-e-Taiba.

 

So if the US tilts more towards India, one might see China strengthening its support of Pakistan to balance it. – Posted by Mauryan

Everything in recent memory says otherwise. Pakistan was on the verge of bankruptcy last year. The Chinese refused to help. They told them to go to the IMF.

If the Chinese really cared about weaning Pakistan off the US teat, this would have been a perfect opportunity. That they didn’t pounce on it should tell you something.
—————-

My gut feeling tells me that China might engage India in a small level military confrontation to “teach India a lesson.” I won’t be surprised if China rolls its tanks into Indian held Kashmir and hand the region off to Pakistan just to rub India in.
- Posted by Mauryan

I disagree. The Chinese are pragmatic if nothing else. They aren’t suicidal. They aren’t going to risk all out conflict to ‘teach India a lesson.’ There can never be any concrete assurances that such a conflict might not go nuclear or that India won’t resort to attacking China’s economic centres. This is why Pakistani fantasies about China splitting off the North-East don’t make sense. The Chinese also know that their West is a boiling cauldron of issues. The loss of the West to China would be far worse than the loss of the North-East for India. At the end of the day, the Chinese care more about their own territory than somebody elses or breaking up other countries. Their history shows that. They aren’t going to invade Kashmir or the North-East to help Pakistan.

All they need to do to keep India in check is refuse to recognize AP as part of India. Keeping tensions up will distract India for a while to come.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Sanjeev,
It appears Indias defence preparedness envisions controlling the Indian Ocean, as I read a couple of days ago, per a washingtons scribe. I will post the weblink later. So the old mantra of containing big boy china or small man Pak, needs a tectonic shift and move to new waters. Understandably, US wants to be in it in the grand scheme of things as an ally from the very beginning, just in case

 

Raj,

I am fully aware of Dr. Tellis’ work. I have the good fortune to meet with him on several occasions and receive a private lecture just for allied and American analysts.

And for the large part I agree with many of his conclusion.

My point was missed though. This exercise is not somehow indicative of US-India relations. The Strykers are hardly the high-tech end of the US Army (it’s a derivative of the LAV III that Canada’s had in service for over a decade). So deploying them in India should be hardly be viewed as exceptional. The only reason Strykers haven’t been sent on exercises has been because they’re needed in the warzones. Now that there are more and more Strykers in service, I’d expect to see them get deployed with increasing frequency. On the other hand, had a Raptor been deployed for an air exercise in India, then we’d have something to talk about.

There is no doubt that the US-India relationship is growing and that engagement is deepening. But at the end of the day, it’s not anywhere near say the US-Japan or US-South Korea relationship, or even US-Australia or US-Canada. This is particularly the case on the military front. India will get there in time, but it’s got a ways to go. And more notably, the question is, would actually ever desire such close relations with the US? Particularly given how this would impact India’s relations with China?

The biggest benefits to India and the US of all this co-operation though is that it pushes them past the old US-Pakistan-India triangular relationship. India is finally getting on with establishing a relationship with the US that is not about Pakistan. They have to some extent, agreed to disagree on Pakistan. That’s a sign of a more mature India.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Majid,

You seem to be a voice of reason on the Pakistani side, and I would like to engage with you to explore some topics, to see if there is any common ground that can be expanded.

I too agree that Pakistanis need to help themselves. Other countries, however well-meaning, should stay out of the way, otherwise it will be seen as undue interference and make matters worse. It has been said before in this forum and elsewhere that most Indians would like to see a stable, peaceful, prosperous and democratic Pakistan with whom India can have friendly political, commercial and cultural relations. But there is not much that India or Indians can do in the current crisis except stay out of the way and hope for the best.

Your questions about Palestine are very valid. I would say it is not a Muslim issue as many Muslims may want to think but a general issue of fairness. It is quite clear that Israel has been heavy-handed in its approach to Palestine and that the US and other Western countries provide unconditional support to Israel. You may remember that India has always supported the Palestinian cause, voted in favour of resolutions condemning Israel, etc.

Unfortunately, India’s support for Palestine has not been adequately appreciated by Muslim countries. Many Muslim countries have taken the side of Pakistan against India on the Kashmir issue for example, not on the basis of fairness but on the basis of Muslim solidarity. Is it any wonder that India and Israel have moved closer? If the Muslim world defines both India and Israel as its enemies, what do these two countries gain by staying apart? Even today, Muslims who condemn Israel and the West over Palestine do not bother to express appreciation for India’s support. Indians don’t like to feel like fools. So on the Palestine question, would you say the Muslim countries have mishandled India and caused it to move closer to Israel?

It’s good to hear you acknowledge the negative impact of Saudi Arabia on the politics of the region. Neither Pakistan nor the US will say a word against Saudi Arabia, because it is a major donor (in the case of Pakistan) or an important “ally” (in the case of the US). I would be interested to know if your opinion is widely held in Pakistan.

I would also like to know what Pakistanis really feel about the prospect of peace with India. Is this just a question of settling the issues of 1971 and Kashmir, or is it something bigger? To put it bluntly, do Pakistanis fear peace with India because they believe they will be culturally swamped if they do not erect a fortress against Indian influence and ‘soft power’?

Regards,
Ganesh

Solve that and the extremist will be left with no properganda tools, as to Afghinstan send in the armies from muslim countries that will less material for the Taliban to brainwash oridinart Afghans or Pakistanis or any muslim.

I agree with one thing we are a rented state, specialy to the Saudi wahabism whio are the real cause of all the Islamic extremism lets not forgott all the 9/11 hijackers were saudis. But I did not even see one bomb being droped near the saudis kings palace to send a signal what he is doing is wrong….

Posted by Ganesh Prasad | Report as abusive
 

Keith writes:

“So if the US tilts more towards India, one might see China strengthening its support of Pakistan to balance it. – Posted by Mauryan

Everything in recent memory says otherwise. Pakistan was on the verge of bankruptcy last year. The Chinese refused to help. They told them to go to the IMF.”

China might want to confine its activities to clandestine military help at this time. Already it is working on a rail road through Azad Kashmir. One thing unique about the Chinese is that it is very difficult to tell what they are up to. They also have to balance the political equation at the same time. What they might be waiting for is proper timing. Of course, it is all guess work at this time. Being an Indian and having watched its tumultuous growth over decades, sometimes my hunches have come out true.

“If the Chinese really cared about weaning Pakistan off the US teat, this would have been a perfect opportunity. That they didn’t pounce on it should tell you something.”

I’ll give credit to the Chinese for their smartness. May be it is not time yet for them to make an overt move. But surely they are watching the developments in the region. Things have not gotten worse yet. Their main concern is about engaging India indirectly and keeping them at a steady level below them.

“My gut feeling tells me that China might engage India in a small level military confrontation to “teach India a lesson.” I won’t be surprised if China rolls its tanks into Indian held Kashmir and hand the region off to Pakistan just to rub India in.
- Posted by Mauryan

I disagree. The Chinese are pragmatic if nothing else. They aren’t suicidal. They aren’t going to risk all out conflict to ‘teach India a lesson.’ There can never be any concrete assurances that such a conflict might not go nuclear or that India won’t resort to attacking China’s economic centres. This is why Pakistani fantasies about China splitting off the North-East don’t make sense. The Chinese also know that their West is a boiling cauldron of issues. The loss of the West to China would be far worse than the loss of the North-East for India. At the end of the day, the Chinese care more about their own territory than somebody elses or breaking up other countries. Their history shows that. They aren’t going to invade Kashmir or the North-East to help Pakistan.”

No arguments here. I am trying to understand the timing of the recent sabre rattling between India and China in regards to Arunachal Pradesh, Dalai Lama’s visit there, Issuing visas to Kashmiris with stamping on paper etc. These incidents did not happen last year or before. I am wondering why this sudden friction between the two countries. They might appear small from the outside. However, there could be something bigger brewing between the two, which is not yet visible to the outside world.

“All they need to do to keep India in check is refuse to recognize AP as part of India. Keeping tensions up will distract India for a while to come.”

That they are doing already. Rememeber the 1962 war was not just a border dispute issue eventhough it was made out to be just that. Rememeber that tyrants or autoarchies have the tendency to deflect domestic issues off by engaging in conflicts.

1962 coincides with the failure of Mao’s famous experiment that resulted in the deaths of millions of peasants. He was under lot of embarrassment and his hold on power was under threat. There were plans to oust him at that time. One of his close associates who stood by him, decided to go against him. And he “died in a plane crash.” Interestingly the war with India helped divert the attention away. So I am wondering if there is something festering inside China that is being held tightly covered from outside view. For all the glitter that they are displaying to the outside world, China has deep and chronic ailments that it wants to hide and does not want anyone to know. A small conflict with a relatively weaker neighboring nation can come in handy in situations of this kind.

Just waving my hands in the air. But having a gut feeling sometimes helps.

 

India should regulate the traffic in Indian ocean. India should make alliances with Indonecia and Thailand for this purpose. Needs to acquire marine equipment for that I understand.

 

I do believe that the USA will indeed get tired of dealing with Pakistan and then Pakistan will accuse the USA of leaving it…as per usual. Problem is that Pakistan fails to ask the USA why it left them? What made Pakistan so bad that the USA had to leave? This sounds more and more like a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.

I, as an Indian, find it very difficult to understand Pakistanis. The day after the Islamic university in Islamabad was bombed, the students were protesting in the streets against the Kerry-Lugar Bill. What is the mentality behind this? Yesterday your fellow students were murdered and now you protest against an aid bill directed at Pakistan!

The same goes for the Peshawar market bombing. The market vendors had been warned in advance by the Taliban not allow women into this area. After the car bomb killed over 110 people, all we heard from the crowd is ‘CIA/RAW/Mossad!’

Today I saw a photo on the BBC webiste that was very sad indeed. A Pakistani policeman eating a free meal at a charity shelter. It is obvious to see that he is not paid enough to feed himself.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Keith,

This article might be of interest to you in relevance to our disagreements on China-India inter-relation. There is a specific paragraph on China-Pakistan nexus and how it exploits the US ambiguity in South Asian policies.

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpape rs35%5Cpaper3497.html

 

Mauryan,

Anybody who seriously studies China will quickly understand that they are seriously misunderstood. No where do I see this more than in the Indo-China relationship. And there’s good reason for it. While the US dedicates something like 10 000 personnel of its intelligence community to understand, India has something around 100. That leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

For example, the 1962 war. You claim it was Chinese aggression. Yet, it was Nehru’s ‘Forward policy’ that brought Indian troops into contact with the Chinese. And despite what’s perceived as their aggression, they returned all the territory they captured. Hardly the act of an aggressor. That’s not to say that China is not a strategic concern for India. Just that, claims of an imminent invasion and attempts to dismember India border on hysterical. That’s no better than Pakistanis who claim that India is trying to dismember Pakistan.

China’s history has long been one of internal division and power struggles which has led to lots of bloodshed. For the Chinese, piority #1 is internal stability and maintaining cohesion. This is why the Communist Party is tolerated. It’s the first party in centuries to keep China united and somewhat peaceful. It’s also why the Chinese tolerate crackdowns on dissenters. They don’t want their country to become the next Yugoslavia.

From that perspective, their militarization of Western China is easier to understand. It was a hotbed of separatism, yet China had very few military forces there. The Tibetan railroad strengthened internal stability and Chinese control over Tibet. That was more important than the secondary benefit of being able to strengthen border defences against India.

If you understand their paramount concern over the cohesion and unity of China, you’ll understand why war with India is not an option. In the aftermath of a war, the disparities that emerge in Chinese society, could break the country. The real tool that the Chinese have to beat India over the head with, is Pakistan. They don’t really care all that much for the Pakistanis (despite what the Paks think). But the Pakistanis are cheap. A railroad here. A port there. A few jets here (at full price, of course) and a gas deal there…and Pakistani loyalty is secured. Together with their occassional sabre ratling (like the recent stuff you mentioned), it keeps India distracted.

The best counter to all this is exactly what India has been doing. Build up good trade relations with China. Maintain good defences but don’t overreact. And keep trying to make peace with Pakistan. Hysteria won’t accomplish much. Level headed thinking and diplomacy will.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Keith writes: “The best counter to all this is exactly what India has been doing. Build up good trade relations with China. Maintain good defences but don’t overreact. And keep trying to make peace with Pakistan. Hysteria won’t accomplish much. Level headed thinking and diplomacy will.”

I agree with you on this 100%. Diplomacy is the best solution to all disputes. I am aware that we can fall into the syndrome of being under threat easily as you point out. I also agree that it is wrong to extrapolate everything done by China as an act to sabotage India. Trust is a very important thing. Nehru trusted them too much and paid the price for it. It was not the war in 1962 itself that shook India up. It was the betrayal of trust. After that, Indians have not changed their views of the Chinese autocrats. But that was long ago before China went capitalistic. Today’s China definitely has a very enterprising population. I only pray that both India and China do not get sucked into small skirmishes either between themselves or with others. That has the potential to mushroom out of control. Let us hope wisdom prevails.

 

Keith,

You are right about the Chinese not caring about the Pakistanis. The Chinese care about there own gains in this world more than others which gives them better leverage. I know that the Gwadar port being built in Baluchistan uses only Chinese engineers and not ‘one’ Baluch or other Pakistani is employed in the direct building of it.

I read an article (from a Pakistani jouralist) questioning why China had ‘refused’ to give Pakistan money and consequently made them run to the IMF? The journalist claimed that the China was using ‘tough love’ and still remained an all weather friend. Ofcourse Pakistan will remain a close friend of China as long as it tows China’s line.

There is a copper mine outside Kabul that is operated by the Chinese and only the Afghans are hired as guards.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Keith,

Just when we are discussing India-China equations, I stumbled across the following link. On the outside, things look nice. However, there are lot of backdoor activities, which makes us Indians a lot more alarmed and concerned.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world  /pakistan/How-China-gifted-50kg-uranium -for-two-bombs-to-Pakistan/articleshow/5 226165.cms

What irks me is that the US has been party to all these because of its immediate objectives. Principles cannot be allowed to fly whenever it suits, especially for big super powers like the US. George Bush Sr. and his prodigal son have done tremendous damage to this world. One talked about the new world order and the other started the war on terrorism. And we are unfortunately stuck near the battleground.

 

All these things look to me crap. I remember talking to one of the Indian Airforce Officer, i asked him why are we not moving aggressively with a US relationship. He told me that they are “UNRELIABLE”.My next question was what is the way out from this Quagmire of China/Pakistan/India, He says the best defense for India is its own people.

If we can spend 5 times the money of Rs 5000crores spent on defense we will be able to prove nobody can mess with us.The best deterrent according to me is build 1000 nuclear bombs & also have a vast stock of chemical & biological weapons. Neither china or pakistan will then mess with us.India’s downfall will be aligning to the US or for that matter any country which aligns to the US will see them going down the drain.

India should be sensitive to china & should not brag more, lie low build credible deterrence & tell the chinese they are competing with the US & not with us.Even if we can’t win the war with chinese we can cause them such harm which will kiss their ambition of becoming a superpower.We can assert by selling the peaceful tibetians some weapons to cause pain to chinese to prove a point.When unrest begins in tibet, ujghar,followed by japs,russian,taiwanese the equation will change dramatically.

If internal turbulence is created in china then you know
before they break us into 50 parts they will become one themself.What goes around comes around.

Posted by Vijay | Report as abusive
 

I don’t understand why most Indians seems to be dithering on coming out openly against US.They have ruined every country in Asia,they don’t like us & still why are asians clinging to them. Why are we repeatedly falling into their trap where they keep playing pakistan vs india,india vs china, saudi arabia vs iran. Are they what the global policemen.

With all their best weapons they could not defeat a simple country like afghanistan,they have spent so far $228BN which is appx 2lakh rs on every afghan citizen,with that kind of money you can turn a desert into a oasis.This war has been fought for the pockets of a few greedy people,the cost of which is paid by limbs,hands,legs of poor people around in this continent.

Their wars have no justification morally,economically or even diplomatically.They should just leave Asia to itself & start addressing their own problems.Their bad karma will bite quickly.

Posted by Vijay | Report as abusive
 

China’s relationship with Pakistan is not all that different from China’s relationship with most of Africa.

It’s almost neo-colonial relationship (sounds harsh but that’s the word used by several African leaders) that exploits Pakistan’s strategic weaknesses (vulnerability to India) for China’s gains. They’re only mutual interest is staving off India. And if the Chinese ever decide that India is worth more than Pakistan (for example if trade with India picks up), they will drop Pakistan like a bad habit. This is something the Pakistanis have a tough time understanding.

Conversely, should Pakistan ever make peace with India, they would find that India would be a significantly better and more balanced trading partner than China ever was.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

we can spend 5 times the money of Rs 5000crores spent on defense we will be able to prove nobody can mess with us.The best deterrent according to me is build 1000 nuclear bombs & also have a vast stock of chemical & biological weapons. Neither china or pakistan will then mess with us.India’s downfall will be aligning to the US or for that matter any country which aligns to the US will see them going down the drain.

India should be sensitive to china & should not brag more, lie low build credible deterrence & tell the chinese they are competing with the US & not with us.Even if we can’t win the war with chinese we can cause them such harm which will kiss their ambition of becoming a superpower.We can assert by selling the peaceful tibetians some weapons to cause pain to chinese to prove a point.When unrest begins in tibet, ujghar,followed by japs,russian,taiwanese the equation will change dramatically.

- Posted by Vijay

——–

Yep. Follow the Pakistan example for your national security strategy. Starve the people. Build big bombs. Sponsor unrest among your neighbours. Great idea.

‘Cause that plan worked out so well for Pakistan.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

I don’t understand why most Indians seems to be dithering on coming out openly against US.
- Posted by Vijay
————-

‘Cause they know that the day the US leaves the region, Pakistan will become India’s nightmare. Either it’ll go into overdrive, flooding India with terrorists or it’ll collapse and India will have to pick up the pieces.

Your cold war thinking is outdated. India as a maturing power can deal more effectively with the US these days than it ever could. Most Indians recognize this. That’s why they are not opposed to the relationship.
============

All these things look to me crap. I remember talking to one of the Indian Airforce Officer, i asked him why are we not moving aggressively with a US relationship. He told me that they are “UNRELIABLE”.
-Posted by Vijay
————–

Please ask your friend why the IAF is buying billions in new platforms from the US if they are considered so unreliable? India is set to become the largest operator of the C-17 Globemaster aside from the US. It’s a launch customer on the P-8A Poseidon. It operates former US Navy amphibious carriers. And depending on the how the competition goes, could end being the largest operator of the F-16 or the F-18 outside the US. It could also become the largest operator of the C-130 Hercules and the AH-4 D Apache, outside the USA.

And that of course does not include other issues like the US-India nuclear deal.

So what from this relationship is unreliable?

Or is it your view that if the US does not agree with absolutely every Indian complaint, they are unreliable?

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Keith and friends:

@ US-China axis and India: While US-India relationship started with Clinton Admn, it flourished under Bush Admn. Obama is new and how warm the relation he wants depends not only on his admn choice but also US-China axis. China has shown on occasion the ability to influence Obama (Dalai Lama visited US and Obama not meeting him). China has lots of money invested in economic stimulus of US and has leverage there too. But as long as US-China relationship does not influence US-India relationship that should be no problem as PM Singh said that there is room for everyone to grow. India has to be positive and develop an indispensable role for US—be that strategic or trade. Democratic nature of India is no small benefit to India as far as US is concerned.

@China-Pak axis and India: Keith, you on the other blog said that if needed, US will not hesitate to use Clinton option and declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terror and slap on the most draconian sanctions legally possible. Thinking again, China-Pakistan axis is a hindrance in that due to the use of Pakistan as proxy against India as well other uses. Take for example the fact that “China is the only country in the Security Council which is blocking sanctions on the Jaish and its chief Maulana Masood Azhar.” China says says technical reasons. Sooner or later, China’s internal Uyghur Muslim problem is going to catch up with them for them to think twice before supporting Pak against India.

@India-China axis: It is already quite developed despite the border problems (they will stay forever perhaps) and both should build up more. India should strengthen and develop Arunachal Pradesh. India-China trade volumes are increasing but India needs to decrease the trade gap. At one time it was in India’s favor. Unnecessary bragging should be avoided by both and it is better to be a silent power without shooting its mouth off. Same goes for China. Media will help here.

@India-Pak axis: Keith you said “Conversely, should Pakistan ever make peace with India, they would find that India would be a significantly better and more balanced trading partner than China ever was.”
–This is the best case scenario for India and Pakistan, especially Pakistan. I am looking forward to the day when Pakistan can take advantage of India development and that will reduce lots of paranoia too. If India-China were not trade partners, I will be very apprehensive to China’s moves. But now we talk of China cannot have military confrontation with India because of their stake in stable India due to the trade relations and their investment in India. I hope some fine day Pakistan leaders wake up (as well as Indians) and start working together. If developed, Pak will hold a respectable place and will be useful to all powers. In the absence of this, Pakistan is going to be used and abused. India-Pak relation can go long way in preventing Pakistan declared terrorist-sponsor since India was the major reason that landed Pakistan where they are now.
Umair and other Pakistanis: what do you say to this?

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

vijay i think you have nothing else to do other then commenting and trying to portray your country as heaven on the earth . just take a realistic look at your country 170 m homeless people . nearly half of the 1000m people under poverty line and your are comparing yourself with china . please no offences but be realistic . its like comparing bugatti with a rickshow .

 

Yep. Follow the Pakistan example for your national security strategy. Starve the people. Build big bombs. Sponsor unrest among your neighbours. Great idea.

‘Cause that plan worked out so well for Pakistan.

Mr Keith,When i mentioned Rs 5000crore, i made a point of India’s money spent on research in defense. You need to go into ministry of defense site where you will see this number for FY 2007-08 budget.

When you make your defense research budget 5 times, you perpetuate a scientific temperment within the country.The kitty of money spent by Pentagon was what spurred many industries be it in communication, aeroplanes or biology. The offshoot of those spends besides helping them in defense also spurred growth economically in creating many trillion dollar industry.

The airforce officer whom i met was as patriotic for the future of our country,it is a insult to our people that we are still struggling to make an aircraft engine in the kaveri project while china had put in place J-7 aircraft (equivalent to F-16),As we fast track 20-30 years ahead you will see the science PHD in china will overtake every country in the world. Within US when coldwar was at its peak the doctorate degrees in physics handed out was upwards of 3500(70s) but around 2005 it was 3000 where 50% was from non us citizens.So it is no guess when you aim to the future the best inventions for mankind are going to get rolled from china than from US.As china starts selling J-7 fighter aircrafts to the world they not only recoup their R&D costs but also create new industries.When we keep buying f-18s, Ac155 gunships etc you are basically advancing the US interests so they can spend more money on research while we have no takeoff at all.

Unless as a country we start aggressively doing these basic things right now we may perhaps end like our forefathers being slaves to someone.The relationship between India & US should be in addressing challenges of how we can keep ahead in technology rather than buying whole parts.These things would take time, so interim we need to build credible deterrent.Credible deterrents are about a insurance policy of the future of indian citizens.The risks of not doing this far outweighs the gains in poverty elimination.

To eliminate poverty we surely don’t need advise from US or others,the NREGA scheme is a world class program as also the schemes on Microfinance.The cess on incometax for primary & secondary education with spurt in school enrolling creates a new breed of intellectual patriots in this country. The scourge of 1000 years subservience to many powers may not get eliminated but atleast i see some direction which i call “progress”.

Posted by vijay | Report as abusive
 

Or is it your view that if the US does not agree with absolutely every Indian complaint, they are unreliable?

No when you start building your arsenals with US weapons, you run into more irritations like spares availability etc.There is more volatility in US relationship which sucks up bringing consistent policies for the people of India.

‘Cause they know that the day the US leaves the region, Pakistan will become India’s nightmare. Either it’ll go into overdrive, flooding India with terrorists or it’ll collapse and India will have to pick up the pieces.

You are perhaps right,I am saying both Pakistan & China runs the risk of existentialism along with India in that scenario.Are you now suggesting that since such a threat looms as indian citizens we have a responsibility to keep buying a reinsurance policy from US.India has to figure out a way to deter such things,but was it not the US in the first place which armed pakistan to its teeth & then allowed the country to go up in flames.So latching to USA is what is causing more disturbance in this subcontinent.You may overrun a country but administering & ruling them is not very easy,people understand the empires of Ghazni, Timur or Alexander & Genghis khan don’t work. A democratic government has a longer life span than imperialism.Why can’t US practively sell these ideals to people of Pakistan.

Your cold war thinking is outdated. India as a maturing power can deal more effectively with the US these days than it ever could. Most Indians recognize this. That’s why they are not opposed to the relationship.

You are missing a big point by being cozy with the US, we have lost out to other opportunities & our self reliance has taken a beating.Where was USA when the birth of our nation took place,were not the finest modern temples of IIT,public sector giants built here whose fruits are now enjoyed.I am not saying a intercourse with them is bad,i am saying this intercourse of US has more costs to be paid in the future.Say US to fight its unpopular war may ask indians to give them troops, they may invoke friendship ( What use is a friend if you can’t help others),your foreign policy will then go tizzy, the weapons you bought will rust & then all other malaise kicks in.Watch pakistan US aid destructive power of crippling them & tearing societies apart.You will know in WW2 India contributed 2 million people for the war efforts of imperialist,the british empire took away our taxes to finance their empires,took away our people to fight from west indies to africa,Indians in the creation of this country took a far sighted outlook which somehow is amiss.As i said before the best defense of India is its people,a non aligned india has more to gain than to lose.At a personal level i think west is prejudiced to Asians,they exploit our differences.Their aim today or tommorow will be to blow away china,pakistan & india.

Posted by Vijay | Report as abusive
 

Vijay:

@When you make your defense research budget 5 times, you perpetuate a scientific temperment within the country.The kitty of money spent by Pentagon was what spurred many industries be it in communication, aeroplanes or biology. The offshoot of those spends besides helping them in defense also spurred growth economically in creating many trillion dollar industry.”

-Correct me if I am wrong on my take on your logic of India sepnding military spending to stimulate non-miltary sectors. you cite US. Defence spending by Penatgon is in US dollars and money changes hands that boosts industries in US. If US buys from China or anyother country that will be boosting China’s economy, not US. So if India spends filthy sum of money it will go to US and other countries who are the major suppliers of the military hardware. This does nothing for India.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Vijay:

Ignore my earlier post since I did not see your recent post.

Don’t you not think that India has Nuclear deterrent already? Do we really need 1000 nuclear bombs and chemical weapons.

Agreed on India’s slow pace in defence research in India.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Mr ABC123,

I don’t need to learn my country from you.I spoke about deterrence in our defense.I do not want 170MM to become 350MM which was the case when we got our independance or when we were ruled by foreignors.

I am not stupid to compare india to china,we learn from china as much we learn from every country.When you are in India people who search for Gold get Gold, people who search for dirt will get dirt.This country has not disappointed people who are hardworking,intelligent & can think slightly ahead.

Posted by Vijay | Report as abusive
 

Vijay,

You obviously have no clue how the scientific sector works in the United States. The bulk of scientific progress did not come from defence research. That’s an urban legend leftover from World War II (when it was true to some extent). The bulk of scientific research in the US is sponsored by granting organizations like NASA, the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy (for nuclear and particle sciences), etc.

There are also private foundations, like the Human Genome Project and the Ansari X-Prize that help pay for research or drive innovation. The Department of Defence is just one player (albeit an important one) in the US scientific community.

As you’ve pointed out a lot of PhDs today are non-citizens. In fact, to some varying extent, that’s always been the case. Yet, it does not matter that they are non-citizens. Most of them stay on in the US or if they do go abroad work for US multi-nationals. Most become US citizens. And it this point that’s important. The US has created an environment that attracts and retains scientific talent from around the world. It’s not just trying to promote its own citizens. It wants the best from every corner of the planet.

It also seems to me like you confuse research with development. The DOD does sponsor a lot of development as opposed to research. Every time they ask Boeing to build a new aircraft or General Dynamics to build a rocket launch system, they are sponsoring development.

They are able to sponsor development not because of scientific capacity but because of a technologically skilled industrial base. This does not mean a bunch of PhDs. It means skilled technicians and mechanics. It means 24 year old undergrad engineers. It means project managers that can handle multi-billion dollar decade long projects. It means companies that are leaders in every field. From Motorola for radios to GM for engines to Boeing for airplanes. It would be a mistake to think that just pumping out PhDs is what has made the US defence sector so succesful.

To develop an industrial base like that, India will have to focus on education from top to bottom. For example, Boeing works with Washington State to emphasize math and science in elementary and secondary schools and to produce sufficiently skilled workers from that state’s universities and colleges. By comparison, how much work does HAL do with 5th grade students in Bangalore?

Finally, on this point, is the issue of capital. A single US defence development project (the Joint Strike Fighter for example) costs more than the entire defence budget of India. This kind of spending is enabled because the US has a large economy that can support that kind of spending. The Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up and even the Chinese are having a hard time today coming anywhere close to that level of technological development in the US. For India to come anywhere close it would have to grow its economy first. You can’t have guns before you have to bread.

These are important points to understand and that’s why I addressed them. The US is a superpower for reasons well beyond its military spending. It’s important to understand that if India wants to compete someday. Even if India wants to have technology that’s on par with US systems to defend against China or Pakistan, it is far better off doing exactly what it’s doing right now: buy some imports, get technology transfers, and focus on growing its economy. Tripling or even quintupling India’s defence research sector will do nothing except drain money from the economy for very poor technological return. It will lead India will less resources to compete with in the future and fewer resources to acquire the systems it needs for its own defence today. Building up defence research and development is a balancing act between current needs, future needs and potential. India has it about right today.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

You seem to misunderstand what the Clinton option was. There is a lot that the US can do to make life difficult for Pakistan even if the Chinese protect them at the UN Security Council.

To start with, Bill Clinton came close to declaring them a state sponsor of terrorism. That would have shut off all aid from the US. It would have also shut off military assistance from the West. That means no lovely staff college jaunts in the West for Pakistan Army officers. No air exercises with Western air forces, etc. It would mean little to no cooperation on intelligence. Etc.

Then there are other levers like the American votes at the IMF which largely determine who gets what aid package. Should Pakistan prove recalcitrant, the next time their economy is falling apart, the US could literally let them collapse economically without so much as lifting a finger.

Then there’s US trade bans. They’ve made life incredibly difficult for other countries like Iran. And Pakistan would be in the same boat. Any corporation that does business Iran opens itself up to fines, lawsuits and forfeiture of assets in the US. They don’t care if its an American or a Dutch or a Chinese company. You have to choose between doing business in Iran or the US. Most companies choose the US. A similar model could be employed against Pakistan.

And yet another (more extreme) option is to bolster India against Pakistan. This means allowing India to import more high tech weapons, freer trade between India and the US, giving India the status of a major non-NATO ally (that Pakistan had before), upping diplomatic support for India during disputes with Pakistan. In short, this would end up forming a US-India alliance as some sort of Pakistan containment strategy.

So as you can see, there’s a lot that can be done without going to the UN Security Council. Hopefully, the day will never come where the US and Pakistan have a hostile relationship. Unfortunately, given the state of events, it can’t be ruled out.

There’s still a lot of hope that that Pakistan will turn around, that they’ll take on the Taliban sincerely and that Afghanistan can still be won. However, the other eventuality is being prepared for.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

The rhetoric of hate is just that – rhetoric. In practice, the world moves along much more pragmatic lines. Ideologies like Communism and Islamist supremacy are not pragmatic because they refuse to accept facts and cling to fantasies.

In the case of Pakistan, the notion of superiority to India was borne out for a while in the 60s and 70s when they had better social indicators, – lower infant and child mortality, lower levels of poverty, etc. The reality then squared with the myth of racial superiority.

Today the reality is very different. India has leaped forward since its economic liberalisation that started in 1991, while Pakistan has sadly stagnated or even gone backwards in several areas. India is now undeniably superior by any objective measurement, and a lot of Pakistanis are finding it hard to accept. But ultimately, reality has to intrude on fantasy and people have to adopt more pragmatic positions to survive in this world, because fantasies don’t pay the bills.

Here’s what I think will happen over the next 10-15 years.

First of all, there will be no nuclear war. There will be plenty of sabre-rattling, but no Armageddon. We speak very easily about it, but it will be very hard for anyone to actually pull off.

The current confusion in Pakistan may continue for a while. It may seem callous to say this, but the violence in Pakistan, while demoralising to the populace in the extreme, is only a drop in the ocean in terms of the percentage of the overall population affected in terms of people killed or injured. It is possible for Pakistan to recover relatively easily, i.e., it’s not like the Soviet Union losing 20 million people during the Second World War. So on the bright side, the current trouble does not spell the end of the Pakistani people. I certainly hope stability and peace are restored in that country soon with no lasting ill effects.

On the India-Pakistan front, I do not expect any breakthrough in terms of peace agreements. We will continue to see a holding pattern. India is not in a situation where it feels constrained to negotiate, and as long as Pakistan makes Kashmir the “core issue” and refuses to progress against the LeT, JeM and the entire anti-India terror apparatus, no progress will be made. No war will occur either. After Kargil, Pakistan has understood that military adventurism will not bring it any gains, and will on the contrary increase its diplomatic isolation.

Over the next decade, India will continue to largely ignore Pakistan (except for maintaining strong defences against terror incursions) while continuing to invest in its own economic engines. It will continue to engage as a positive force in the world and forge stronger ties with other economies, including the US and China. During this period, Pakistanis will slowly come to terms with the new reality that India is far ahead of them and can never be treated as an equal. Even China will discourage them from doing anything to India that will impact their own economic interests, which will be considerable by that time.

Once domestic opinion in Pakistan goes through the five stages (denial -> rationalisation -> blame -> shame -> acceptance), the Pakistani establishment will be ready to engage with India on the basis of pragmatism. Currently, judging by blog comments and talk shows, Pakistani society is stuck in stages 1-3. A tentative peace agreement will be struck, placing contentious issues on the backburner and a focus on areas of economic cooperation.

Over the next five years, as relations slowly improve and trust increases, there will be a general relaxing of trade barriers, travel restrictions, laws against cross-border investment, property-holding, etc.

When Pakistan’s relations with India improve, the other countries in South Asia will also be encouraged to mend fences with their bigger neighbour. They can no longer use the Pakistan counterweight against India and will follow Pakistan’s lead.

When a sufficiently long period has elapsed with relative peace and strengthened ties between countries in the region, visa and other requirements will be dropped, and the entire region will be a single economic zone like the EU. Each nation will still be sovereign, but in practical terms, this will not matter much to the average citizen of the region. They can live and work in any country, own property, invest in the stockmarket, etc.

Sometime during this period, the Kashmir issue will be quietly resolved. It may not even make front-page news, because it would merely be officialising a de facto arrangement. It will not matter if Kashmir is a separate political entity or continues to remain across two countries because there will be no political tension anyway, and full political and economic freedom for all the people of the region, with every region and ethnic group having sufficient autonomy to preclude unrest.

At that time, people may look back at this current period and wonder what the fuss was all about.

I’m an optimist and this is what I believe the future holds for South Asia. But I’m also a realist and I know this will not happen overnight. The obstacle that remains is the attitude of the average Pakistani. Nothing we say here will change that. We (Indians as well as the rest of the world) need to give them time (maybe a decade) to accept the reality of their situation and come around.

Regards,
Ganesh

Posted by Ganesh Prasad | Report as abusive
 

At a personal level i think west is prejudiced to Asians,they exploit our differences.Their aim today or tommorow will be to blow away china,pakistan & india.
- Posted by Vijay

An Indian version of Anjum?

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Vijay,

Did the US Embassy/Consulate reject your visa application or something?

Posted by Mortal | Report as abusive
 

Mr Mortal,

Unfortunately no.I never had the need to go to USA to make an application.I won’t come in your way if you want to massage them though?

Mr Keith,

Thanks.The bread before Gun was tried in our history, it unfortunately left us badly bruised for 1000years.I am sure you lock your house before going to earn your bread ? I do not know if someone three streets away from your house can protect you from robbery when your neighbour turns out to be a thief.

Can u please tell me how many terror attacks were there before 9/11 in this part of the world or in pakistan?.I see someone or the other blowing out everyday.

Atleast on the research aspect at a academic level just want to know i had seen their federal sites where Nasa spents 25Bn while pentagon spends $500+BN ( a big share may go to research). Good pure research is something only government can support (Example Manhattan Project). If you say all the other agencies have a big fat budget will be glad to know.

Before you accuse me as being nemesis of Anjum, Can u please tell me were not the differences of princely indian states well exploited by western powers. You may want to read the carnatic battles for starters.Also don’t overlook the birth of BNP, EDL in UK which are also some recent phenomenon.Their manifesto speaks not to have a foreign policy which is a stooge to US, besides their other tolerant visions.

I am saying the Policy of the first indian primeminister JN Nehru is what we need of non alignment & not to succumb to foreign powers.Fortunately keith you were not around when he decided to give a “go” for BARC ot other programes else we would have seen lot more mud thrown at us.

Posted by Vijay | Report as abusive
 

Vijay,

You seem to have trouble differentiating between defence budgets, and defence research and development. Your previous post was about quintupling the defence research budget. Now you are talking about having adequate defences. I never suggested India should not have adequate defences. I suggested that quintupling the defence research budget would be a waste of resources that could actually diverrt money from the defence budget.

On the issue of defence research budgets, the $500 billion spent by the Pentagon is largely for operations and procurement. Very little goes into research. Keep in mind that a US soldier is given pay and benefits that far outstrip what any Indian soldier could dream of. This means that the US spends a large proportion of its budget taking care of its troops while India can spend a larger proportion of its defence budget on research and procurement. This will change as India gets wealthier and standards of living rise.

As for your other stuff, I am not going to respond. I don’t respond to crazy conspiracy theorists. This is my last post in response to you, since you seem to be venturing into Anjum territory (hence the response from your fellow Indians here).

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Vijay,

One last point. As for the supposed independence of the work at BARC, you might want to talk to the Canadians about it. They seem to have the impression that India misused the technology given to them. The ‘Atoms for Peace’ programs explicitly prohibited the use of Canadian donated nuclear technology and US provided heavy water for nuclear weapons work. Do you think the fact that India betrayed them, might have something to do with Canadian opposition to the US-India nuclear deal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Bud dha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIRUS

So what’s the difference between what BARC accomplished and what AQ Khan did for Pakistan (before he started proliferating)?

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Mr Mortal,
Unfortunately no.I never had the need to go to USA to make an application.I won’t come in your way if you want to massage them though? – Posted by Vijay

No sir, I believe in freedom of speech & won’t be messaging anyone. It’s just that I have detected a consistent overkill of anti-Americanism in your comments, so I was just wondering, that’s all!

Posted by Mortal | Report as abusive
 

@Vijay, Keith, you guys seem to be defense policy analysts for your respective countries. It’s great to see a diverging point of view and a lot of intelligent, thought provoking propositions, but you guys seem to be deviating from the this blog.

Posted by GW | Report as abusive
 

GW,

I take great offence to you grouping me in with Vijay. He’s no defence analyst. As a recent practitioner of that trade I can tell who is and who isn’t. Heck, he doesn’t seem to know the difference between capital and research budgets. In my time, I have met Indian defence analysts and none of them put forward such ridiculous anti-American screed as what we’ve seen from Vijay here.

He’s gone from discussing the merits of various US-India relations (the topic of this article) to some bizarre focus on Nehruvian philosophy which even he can’t quite seem to elucidate clearly. And then goes on talk to about the rise of the BNP and EDL in the UK. What does that have to with US-India-Pakistan relations?

I submit to you, that this gentleman is no different than a rather excitable Pakistani fellow we’ve encountered here lately.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

Mr Mortal,

The issue was never about USA. Infact i have great respect for that country especially Presidents like Abraham Lincoln who thought ” All men created are equal & Government should be about ” Of the people, for the people & by the people”.

The distorted application of these principles by USA is what causes me anguish when within their power they can do it advancing these causes.Also it is USA which has armed countries to the teeth,perpetuated the protection of thugs.The selective application of US citizens life is superior to others makes me very disgusting.It reminds me of what Churchill spoke ” That a half naked fakir can’t parley as equal to them”.When i referred BNP i made this point they want to be freed from the clutches of US policy while we seem to cling to them lately.

I am sure loving India is not a crime though we all have these struggles to overcome infirmities of Human Nature which is Fear & Hatred.I am more secure if we push to goals on self reliance than to depend on others.

Sticking to the point of this note where the Author asks this question “Will America turn to India, where it still enjoys support and admiration among ordinary people even more than government leaders”.

The answer to me is NO.Our history has taught us to not side with any Imperialist, and to give a foreign policy which is independant & not to give a perception we are aligned but non aligned.Anyway i gently disagree with Keith when he says you should not increase your research budget but rather use it for recurring defense.I saw in 98 after the sanctions when vajpayee announced the 28000kms national highway creation which revitalized every indian industry and increased comforts for ordinary men.Similarly when you increase your research outlay there is a new breed of generation which sprouts not to work as glorified clerks but to amass required skills for a new age.Building is more pleasurable than destroying or buying. From what i see around people who lean on crutches of foreign powers have not had a easy time.

Posted by Vijay | Report as abusive
 

Vijay,

Vajpayee spending to building roads was a wise decision. But what did the road construction policy have to do with the sanctions or defence? That was work that was planned. By that token, any and all government projects undertaken inside the country should be considered beneficial.

What you are advocating for is a ‘Buy India’ policy. It’s no different than the current ‘Buy America’ policy that’s being pushed in the US and is a global headache. The last time that policy came into fashion globally, it led to the Great Depression as global trade came to a halt. Is that what you want?

Keep in mind that a ‘Buy India’ policy, even on defence procurement will lead to trade retaliation from India’s trade partners. All those BPO and software jobs will be repatriated to the West, the moment India decides it does not want to trade anymore.

And your thinking would be hypocritical, given India’s opposition to ‘Buy America’ as well. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand that the US open its market and advocate for India to close its own. The ultimate loser in this policy would be the average Indian you claim to want to help. That average Indian has been one of the biggest beneficiary of global trade in the world. That can all easily change if ideas like yours become popular.

There’s a reason Nehruvian self-sufficiency went out of vogue in the 80s and 90s. After 40 years, look where it left India. Even the Communists in China have understood the need to trade. And they do it for their strategic industries as well.

Keep in mind that this time around, Boeing is not just selling aircraft to India. All those big US defence contractors are setting up plants in India. They are employing Indians, training them and using Indian management. There is no way the US would have allowed that, if it foresaw the need to have flexibility on its India policy. It’s a huge deal, that I don’t think you fully understand the ramifications of. And you are advocating going back on it, for some vague Nehruvian feel good sentiment.

Finally, I think you still don’t understand the difference between industrial development and research. Scientific research is the kind that occurs in a lab. Pumping out PhDs is not going to really create jobs. Industrial development is where the government employs policy to develop specific sectors of the economy (usually in conjunction with private enterprise). That’s what creates jobs and expertise. Increasing your research budget won’t do much if you don’t have the industrial based to absorb all that innovation. That’s what makes the US powerful. PhDs have companies willing to develop their ideas. And there’s capital available from the market or government that help innovators bring ideas to fruition. All that is development. If you increase your research budget without building a framework to make use of that output, all you’re going to do is pump out PhDs.

This is exactly what India has been doing for the last 50 years. And the world thanks you for it. We are extremely grateful that you spend money on training great doctors, engineers and scientists to export to us. We are grateful that you don’t actually build successful industrial frameworks and policies to employ these people.

And I guess I shouldn’t really complain if you don’t understand the difference between research and development. After all, that’ll just mean more unemployed Indian PhDs to migrate to Canada! So yeah, I say go for it. Increase your research budget ten fold. And then send us all your post-graduates.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

The distorted application of these principles by USA is what causes me anguish when within their power they can do it advancing these causes.Also it is USA which has armed countries to the teeth,perpetuated the protection of thugs.The selective application of US citizens life is superior to others makes me very disgusting.It reminds me of what Churchill spoke ” That a half naked fakir can’t parley as equal to them”.When i referred BNP i made this point they want to be freed from the clutches of US policy while we seem to cling to them lately.
-posted by Vijay

That the US values the lives of its citizens is what makes the country worthwhile. It is up to India to do the same. Don’t criticize the Americans for watching out for their citizens, their interests and defending them, just because India can’t or won’t do the same. That’s just sour grapes. There is nothing stopping India from doing the same, except of course, Indians.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

mr ganesh parsad,
I liked your commentry and really hope that things would follow the course you outlined. Equally, I am afraid that the events may not follow the logical line. My thinking is always different, I analyse current events and look into the past history and come to a different prognosis. Let me mention some of my thoughts as a nourishment for your views:
. the occupation of kashmir by the indian military was accidental. Both political parties in India should have cleared the accession of the states more precisely when they had already agreed with the colonial administration about giving a separate home to the muslim population.
. India with its oldest civilisation and multi cultured society with their traditions, customs and values is unique and second to none in the world. You do not have to refer to a religious book to guide the society in the right direction.
.India closest neighbour, rightly or otherwise has taken the position of undoing the occupation of Kashmir and has even lost its east pakistan wing.
. Two persons were born in an Indian village, both of them studied nuclear science and were able to developec atomic weaponry for India and Pakistan. The Indian Govt. made their scientist as the President of India, whereas the Pakistan military put their heroe in house arrest.
. All invaders into India came with theirc warriors from the north, with the exception of Brits. who came in merchant ships. The invaders from the north did not come to India to conquer the land but with the intention of destroying the wealth and culture of the land which was seen as unique but foreign.
. The nuclear weaponry and the sophistited delivery systems currently in India and Pakistan are not meant to be deterrants. Their use by any of the protogonista is for first strike and as a last resource. In such an event would cause not only casualties of the civilians but contaminate a large chunk of fertile land. I am sure this senario has been looked at in both countries.
. Pakistan intrusion ointo the Pushtoon and waziri land in order to suppress them is an adventure and is unlikely to succeed. These people have never been defeated by foreigners in living and non living memory. They have defeated the soviets, the americans and the nato armies in their territory on afghan side of the border. They are currently receiving cash payments from USA and the Nato armies who are allowed a limited space for their helicopters and aeroplanes. The skirmishes occur when the armies carry out reconisence missions without any payment. Mr Gates believes that more boots on ground would get them more space in the land. Mtr obama knows that more boots would cause more casualties.
. This unrest and destabilisation of the region is not in the interest of all nations.
. My prognosis tells me that the western civilisation is going to see setbacks over the next century(not 10 to 15 years)and the asian nations including India and China are likely to emerge as the greatest powers in the world. Equally I see that the Pushtoons who in total are more than sixty million will have no option but to spread their civilisation and I mean civilisation across the subcontinent. They have never been left alone even for a century.
. The foregoing could occur without war and violence but could be bloody and the history could record the repeat of world war two. The leaders of the people will decide the course!!

Have a nice evening!
.

Posted by rex minor | Report as abusive
 

uthor/moderator: Could you please be kind to let this go through?
Thanks in advance,
rajeev

Keith:
@You seem to misunderstand what the Clinton option was. There is a lot that the US can do to make life difficult for Pakistan even if the Chinese protect them at the UN Security Council.
-posted by Keith

Keith: I am aware that Clinton option is much more than just US influence in UNSC. You would have seen Indians talking about US using its powers to take care of Pakistan—that’s what they mean since we know that US can take care of Pakistan which is becoming a genuine and increasing headache. K-L bill is the first step for tightening the leash—but a useful one for everyone including Pakistan.
My point was that the rise of China has placed them in an increasingly powerful position from where China can influence US— not just as Permanent security member. Pakistan is just part of India’s concerns—the other one is China itself. Obama’s China visit indicates a lot how US puts China and some useless decibels by Obama to please China, such as China’s role in India-Pak relationship—knowing very well India is averse to 3rd party. He should be smart enough to know that China is the most unfit country to do the job given that China itself has problems with India and is using Pakistan is China’s proxy. Definitely India is going to get uncomfortable at this but that’s their game and India has to watch out for its own butt and tread carefully, but positively. China-US axis will blunt any Clinton option.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Rajeev,

My original point was that the Clinton option is on the table to deal with Pakistan, post-Afghanistan. At that point, with no US troops in the region, Pakistan’s instability and terrorist sympathizing institutions could become a threat not just to US interests but US national security itself. In this case, the Clinton option will seem mighty tempting. After all, what does the US have to loose? It’s not like Pakistanis love the US anyway.

Living in the West, I just don’t get the sense that there’s a China-US axis. For all the talk and bonhomie during state visits, it’s quite clear there’s a lot of tension beneath the surface between China and the US. And I would argue that over an issue as important as terrorism and its impact on US national security, there is no way the US would give in to China. The biggest stick of the Clinton option is US policy itself, which China has zero control over. Should the US declare Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, and ban companies from trading with Pakistan, there is nothing China can do about it, since the laws are US laws, enforceable only in the US (though of course, every multi-national does business in the US, hence the strong impact of such laws). There is really no leverage for China should the US decide to get really aggressive with Pakistan. Are they going to risk economic war with the US, over Pakistan? I doubt it. They haven’t even defended Pakistan when it’s had conflict with India. Would they really going to bat for Pakistan, against the US? I doubt it.

Aside from that,

The US-India relationship is a separate issue. One of the biggest complaints western diplomats have is that Indian diplomats always want to talk about Pakistan. It is good that India is slowly moving away from that. Pakistan has become more of an annoyance than a paramount strategic threat. And India’s confidence with regards to its Pakistan policy is showing. And this is what has allowed relations to progress. Today, India does not make relations conditional on talking about Pakistan. India should be careful (and for the most part it has) that Indian diplomacy doesn’t go back to old ways except with China substituted for Pakistan.

The US is not going to fix Pakistan for India’s sake. It will do so only if its in the interest of the US. This is not a slight to India. The US has had disagreements with all its allies. That’s just how it is.

But the US is trying very hard to improve relations with India. It has been recognized in the US India could be a natural partner. And there is recognition of this in both major parties (though Democrats remain weary of India’s nuclear record). There has been a sea change in the attitude of even the average American towards India, in no small measure because of the hard working Indian diaspora who’ve become textbook immigrant success stories (Americans love that stuff). One would hope India recognizes the change of heart and accepts the hand of friendship being extended here.

Nursing past wounds of the relationship or lingering in mistrust, as proposed by some, like Vijay here, will only do damage to India’s interests at this stage.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

@The US is not going to fix Pakistan for India’s sake. It will do so only if its in the interest of the US. This is not a slight to India. The US has had disagreements with all its allies. That’s just how it is.
…..
“Living in the West, I just don’t get the sense that there’s a China-US axis. For all the talk and bonhomie during state visits, it’s quite clear there’s a lot of tension beneath the surface between China and the US.”
-Keith

Keith:
I can see first hand how hard it is for difficult to get the job done from Pakistan by US in its own interests. So it is understandable it becomes harder to ask favors for your friends unless the interests overlap. No denying that. Terrorism that India faces falls in this category. Interests seems to overlap lately.

@The US-India relationship is a separate issue. One of the biggest complaints western diplomats have is that Indian diplomats always want to talk about Pakistan. It is good that India is slowly moving away from that. Pakistan has become more of an annoyance than a paramount strategic threat.”

–I can see that. Much of my anxiety arises from soft Indian diplomacy. For India’s size, rise and aspirations and the complex relationships–regional and elsewhere—India needs increase in quality and quantity of its manpower–diplomats etc who efficiently and positively do their job. I don;t want to see them complaining and giving excuses for their lack of insight.

@Democrats/India: Obama is new and let us see how US-India relationship grows under his admn—time will tell. Bush was a hit though–many things happened.

@But the US is trying very hard to improve relations with India. It has been recognized in the US India could be a natural partner. And there is recognition of this in both major parties (though Democrats remain weary of India’s nuclear record). There has been a sea change in the attitude of even the average American towards India, in no small measure because of the hard working Indian diaspora who’ve become textbook immigrant success stories (Americans love that stuff). One would hope India recognizes the change of heart and accepts the hand of friendship being extended here.

-I live in US–5 hrs drive from Toronto–for a decade and agree with what you said and recognize that. I think America is viewed quite positively in India. To me Indian market and democratic system are huge plus for US to interact with India.

I hope this post gets uploaded–takes several attempts recently.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

I can see that. Much of my anxiety arises from soft Indian diplomacy. For India’s size, rise and aspirations and the complex relationships–regional and elsewhere—India needs increase in quality and quantity of its manpower–diplomats etc who efficiently and positively do their job. I don;t want to see them complaining and giving excuses for their lack of insight.

There are two kinds of Indian diplomats. The young guy who’s educated, has exposure to the West and works hard. And the old guy, who’s basically stuck with the Cold War anti-Imperialist, Nehruvian mentality. What’s holding India back is for every young guy the Indian diplomatic corps has, they’ve got 2 or 3 of the older type. And India has far too few diplomats for a country of its size and stature. Last I heard it was somewhere around a thousand or so. The US probably has more than that many staffers at the State department headquarters building alone.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

@And India has far too few diplomats for a country of its size and stature. Last I heard it was somewhere around a thousand or so. The US probably has more than that many staffers at the State department headquarters building alone.
- Posted by Keith

–On India, I agree without doubt.
US did not do enough home work in Af/Pak case. Very clearly, it is learning on the job. US left 1989 and stopped studying Pushto/Dari and the culture as if there is no coming back here. So the Army of Diplomats and agents were not up on the task here.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

US did not do enough home work in Af/Pak case. Very clearly, it is learning on the job. US left 1989 and stopped studying Pushto/Dari and the culture as if there is no coming back here. So the Army of Diplomats and agents were not up on the task here.
- Posted by rajeev

Keep in mind, there’s a big difference between the diplomats doing their job and their masters following their advice. I don’t think its right to slight the diplomats here. American diplomats (several of whom I’ve met), senior military officers, aid workers, etc. did have a decent understanding of the region. And they did convey the complexity of the problems in the region to their masters.

However, governments are not duty bound to take the advice of their servants. If the politicians decide not to listen to their civil servants that’s their choice. And arguably on Afghanistan, the administration in power at the time chose to disregard much of what it was being told by their military staff, aid workers, diplomats, intelligence analysts, etc. That does not mean these people didn’t do their job.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

@ And arguably on Afghanistan, the administration in power at the time chose to disregard much of what it was being told by their military staff, aid workers, diplomats, intelligence analysts, etc. That does not mean these people didn’t do their job.
- Posted by Keith

@I don’t think its right to slight the diplomats here.”
–No way I am slighting any one. My reading of people who know the region and are from the region and in touch with the American govt. allows me to say so. Admn will listen to all the happenings in the region but will do nothing about it, despite these guys pleading with the admn.

Main point is US did not think Afghanistan is that important or will become this important.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Keith:

Somehow my post is not being uploaded. I am skipping any details—(URLs etc) supporting the IBC figures below that were informative but perhaps are coming in way of uploading. Will upload them later if possible. Will try to say this:

@ Let us say that genocide is an inappropriate word, but “strategic error” is the wrong choice of word either. I think Iraqi victims deserve special treatment—not just considered collateral damage of a war that should not have taken place.

“Strategic error” is also a good word if you are thinking from US POV and that US went to Iraq instead of staying put and strengthening themselves in Afgh.
The number of Iraqis died is 655,000 according to “Lancet” –a controversial figure but no one can prove it wrong—Republicans and its media cried a lot but they have not scientific evidence to refute that figure (I always thought that such a big figure was propaganda but I zoomed in and found otherwise. Still, I wish that # is an overestimate (it is not body count obviously but an estimation and I think that this is an overestimate). But there is another study by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in The New England Journal of Medicine that reports 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis died violent deaths between the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and June 2006. Still a lots of death, ignoring Lancet study.

This cannot be called just another war or Indians operations in Kashmir and SL or now anti-LTTE by SL etc…. There was lot at stake for each one but nothing for US in Iraq as far as the basis of the war is concerned.

If this does not fall in the UN definition of “genocide” then clearly UN definition needs to be expanded or a better word is required. I can go in detail on this since it falls in gray area of genocide or not—depends. But I know this: Dead Iraqis deserve more than being called collateral damage.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Keith:

With respect to our discussion on the relationship between India, China and USA, here are some useful links.

Altered Fundamentals
“Despite honour of the first state visit, India is peripheral to the US strategy, as demonstrated by the recent U.S.-China Joint Statement that has only accentuated Indian anxieties”
Ashley J. Tellis
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx  ?262966

“Forget China, the real threat is ‘Chinusa’
Shobhan Saxena

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com  /Main-Street/entry/forget-china-the-rea l-threat

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

USA never sincere Pakistan its a real history
http://www.adylimo.com/

Posted by kashifsharjeel | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •