India’s Foreign Policy: An Analysis

Re: # 15

anil mian,

....... i just post whatever happens to be on bbc for the day ........... since i have never been to india, i am perplexed by the contrast between the grand picture presented by folks like bj and others on this forum and the ugly images of india that we see on bbc ....... i just don`t know what to believe

Re: # 12

Hamidm sahib:

These pictures show an improvement in your taste over the previous pictures of ugly sadhus. May be you are softening toward wrong side of the border.

The real economic action is in the Far-east and in China. The middle-east and central asia regions are going to remain war zones and basket cases for a long time, given the conditions in afghanistan, iraq and possibly iran. Therefore, India should just ignore Pakistan for the next 2 decades and aggressively seek out integration with the far-east with economies like Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. It should reach out to Myanmar to get road access to the far-east. It should aggressively create free ports in the Indian ocean to trade with the far-east countries. The other direction is north with China. Land-routes should be opened with China and we should aggressively pursue economic opportunities with them.

The first two-three paragraphs of summarization are fine. The rest of this article is sheer crappy buckwaas.

It suffers from the same malady that it accuses the country of India of – producing too much moralizing and little else of substance!

#5 Shah2

Good observation!

Nasser (considered one of the three architects of the non-aligned movement, along with Nehru and Tito) was more into Arab nationalism and not so much into being pro-eastern or pro-western. He tried to get the best deal that he could for his country from either the USA or from the (then) USSR - often playing one against the other - in order to get arms and economic aid (for the Aswan dam project).

He ended up having better luck with the USSR (especially with the recently in-place Khruschev) than he did with the USA. Part of the reason was that the USSR was then trying to BECOME a player in the middle-east and the British (who retained some of the colonial mindset at the time) were highly anti-Nasser and along with the French and the Israelis, started war upon the nationalization of the Suez canal. The USSR took the position that it was within Egypt`s rights to do so as a sovereign nations right to determine ``eminent domain``! Things went the USSR way for a while after that.

President Eisenhauer personally did not feel too negatively about Nasser and perhaps would have been more helpful to him and Egypt, but he appears to have been influenced by the hard-liner John Foster Dulles, the then US Secretary of State.

Re:ali1#4

[..Articles like these are all part of the rabid propaganda unleashed by the cabal of leftists, liberals, ISI agents, pinkos, Arundhati Roy, Adnan Sami and communist brahmin women with Pakistani boyfriends....]

You guys hate Adnan Sami? Why? He is such a roly-poly guy singing his songs. What harm did he do to you?

#5 by Shah2 on January 15, 2007 1:36pm PT
”J#3H.P.``amal Nasser coup was supported by mostly the right wing and somewhat pro-US/pro west elements in the Egyptian army.``

I do not know if rest of your dessertation has any merit but USA did not supoprt Egypt untill death of Nassr”

I prefer not to respond to posts that show sheer ignorance as it is never my attention to make people look like fools but some people just ask for it.

Shah, I ignored your post until this known idiot came along with “good observation” stuff. First, where did I say Nasser was supported by the US? Second, there is a hell lot of difference between the Pro-US elements and the US support.

I was actually talking about who supported Nasser’s coup and not when the US supported the Egyptians.
I understand that you perhaps are not fully familiar with the political background of the Nasser coup in the 50s. It is always a good idea to research and understand what the reference is before posting something.

Now about the post #18 by idiot bihari.

The US was mainly responsible for forcing British, Israel and France to stop the war over the Suez Canal nationalization. The Soviet Union had very limited role in that war. By that token, Egypt should have been a US partner but the Egypt ended up in the Russian camp over the aswan dam construction issue.

``After the Nasser revolution, and at first the USA and Britain were to help finance construction with a loan of USD $270 million. Both nations canceled the offer in July 1956 for reasons not entirely known. A secret Egyptian arms agreement with Czechoslovakia (Eastern Bloc) and Egyptian recognition of the People`s Republic of China are cited as possible reasons. Soon thereafter, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, intending to use its tolls to subsidize the High Dam project. This prompted Britain, France, and Israel to attack Egypt, occupying the Suez Canal and precipitating the Suez Crisis.

As part of the Cold War struggle for influence in Africa the Soviet Union stepped in 1958, and possibly a third of the cost of the dam was paid for as a gift. The Soviets also provided technicians and heavy machinery. The enormous rock and clay dam was designed by the Russian Zuk Hydroproject Institute.

Construction began in 1960. The High Dam, as-Sad al-`Aali, was completed on July 21, 1970, with the first stage finished in 1964. ``

``Amongst the mainsprings of India’s foreign policy is the belief that India was a great civilization and is a great power.``

........the whole premise of this article is wrong.........india is not a civilization.....neither is pakistan (i always need to add such rejoinders, so that our indian colleagues don`t get too uptight)........only bangladesh is a civilization......

.......hence india could not have been a great (or not great) civilization, since it is a combination of many many civilizations........india of today (and pakistan - notice rejoinder) are nothing but geographical boundaries drawn around areas th british conquered...........had they conquered afghanistan, would it be a part of the indian civilization also?.......had pakistan not separated, it would be a part of india......would it be a part of this historical, ``indian`` civilization?

...........by the time british started conquering south asia, it was breaking into its historical, ``kingdoms.``...........had the british not arrived, there would be a bengal, a maratha state, a hyderabad state, a punjab state, mysore, etc.........much of pakistan would actually be a part of afghanistan, which is where it originally was, until british conquered that part of afghanistan and annexed it.......

.........do keep in mind that british did not conquer punjab till 1849, when, infact, they conquered bengal, in the battle of plassey in 1757 - literally a hundred years before they conquered punjab!........

..........is punjab a part of the, ``indian`` civilization?...........according to this article, it is..........had the british never conquered it, it wouldn`t be........

........anyone looking in history for, ``india`` (or pakistan - notice rejoinder again), has little knowledge of south asian history.......he/she is just trying to create a history for india and/or pakistan, so that it can be used to define an identity.........

one can argue that bengal or punjab or sind or bihar etc. were or were not a great civilization.........but not india (or pakistan), as the later are not civilizations.........they are newly formed (and quite artificial) nation states, based on forced conquered boundaries by a foreign power...........

#21 by bulleya on January 15, 2007 6:01pm PT
``Amongst the mainsprings of India’s foreign policy is the belief that India was a GREAT civilization and is a GREAT power.``
I agree with you fully except if you object to boundries let us take out ...NOT the boundries whatever they may be BuT this ubiqutous word GREAT ....then we can all have less of a chip on our shoulder which the author also trying to make

hamidm2

There is a very truthful cliche: Nothing about India is not true. :)


Shah2

Much better option, let everyone feel they are great.

Do you know, the world`s greatest country is Tuvalu, some 9 square miles of muddy greenery and water, in Polynesia, made up entirely of a few coral atolls? Their fish - the proudest creatures that ever swam - are absolutely convinced that their Father Fish was the greatest critter ever born.

No skin off our nose, no? :)

chris...

what an amateurish article...almost as bad as some of the bat shit crazy stuff you read from the pakis...

agreed # 25

Aparna, dear lady, do yourself a favor....take a break.

shah2 #23: ``...BuT this ubiqutous word GREAT ....then we can all have less of a chip on our shoulder which the author also trying to make``

.....i would agree with you.......i have never figured out the psyche of countries/individuals who want everyone to acknowledge them as, ``great,``.........one sees it the most amongst americans.........always refering to themselves as great.......it is a sign of underconfidence and of a small p.....(ancreas).........

........having said that, if we detach ourselves from south asia (not india and pakistan, mind you) and look at it objectively, one can make a good point that it did produce some interesting and accomplished civilizations, for its time........

........maenjodoro and harrappa (and thus sind and part of punjab)......certainly accomplished for their times.......taxila........ashoka......bengal, which prior of its pillage by the british was the largest textile house and one of the wealthiest areas in the world.......

........and of course, who can forget qasur and delhi........the birthplace of the spoken word.......the home of bulleh shah and ghalib - two civilizations in and of themselves......any place that could produce people like this, must have had a lot going for it, at some point.......

however, it is a historical sin to try to artificially map all this history into india (and pakistan) to define an identity........a sign of an even smaller p......(ancreas).......

india may be a civilization, five hundreds from now........but it isn`t one now and never was (please add rejoinder)..........

#9 by Urstruly on January 15, 2007 2:17pm PT


The problem is that you`all don`t make anything other than jihadis...

Pakistan suffers $1.402b deficit

JAVED MAHMOOD
KARACHI - Pakistan has suffered a hefty deficit of $ 2.17 billion dollars in bilateral trade with China and India in 11 months of the last calendar year, mainly because of trade liberalisation policy of the government, The Nation learnt on Friday.
The country sustained $ 1.402 billion deficit in trade with China from January to November 2006 period while liberal bilateral trade with India cost Pakistan $ 775 million.
Details obtained by The Nation showed that in 11 months of last calendar year, Pakistan and China traded $ 2.158 billion worth of goods. Pakistan exported only $ 378 million various items to China while imported $ 1.78 billion goods.
Similarly, exports to India stood at $ 184 million while imports amounted to $ 959 million that showed the deficit of $ 775 million during the period under review.
Official sources pointed out that Pakistan-China free trade pact has largely tilted the balance of trade toward the later country.
Although the officials of the Ministry of Commerce have attempted to improve the trade balance by including some important products in the bilateral free trade agreement, the imports from the said friendly country continued to exhibit massive growth, said the officials.
Pakistan is importing machinery, spare parts, chemicals, railway vehicles, coaches, plastic products and other items from China in bulk that was leading to increase in imports, they said.

yes..India needs foreign policy advise from pakis...whose country has become a bitch to uncle sam..and the master wants the paki government to bomb more pakis...

Pak may review NWA pact

RAO KHALID
RAWALPINDI - After increasing criticism by the US and local tribesmen belonging to the area, the government is seriously considering reviewing the existing North Waziristan Agreement to make it more effective and result-oriented, TheNation learnt Monday.
The issue came under discussion during a high-level meeting with President General Pervez Musharraf in the chair at Presidential Camp Office on Monday. The meeting reviewed the border security situation in the areas adjacent to Afghanistan.
The sources said that there was a feeling that the earlier agreement is weak and it failed to deliver the desired results as also observed by US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher during his recent visit to Pakistan.
Boucher during an interaction with the local media at the US Embassy after meeting Pakistani leaders had said, “The peace deal in North Waziristan Agency has not helped decrease militants’ cross-border movement and they have become an increasing threat for Afghanistan’s peace and stability.”
The government has received reports about the movement of foreign elements (not in big number) across the border, taking advantage of a clause of NWA pact that allows the local residents to move on both sides of the border freely to see their relatives, the sources said.
In Monday’s meeting, Musharraf directed installation of the state-of-the-art system to record all movements across the Pak-Afghan border, observance of regulations and documentation of all those who cross the frontier legally and with rightful purposes.