Pak Tea House » Afghanistan, Great game, Imperialism, Pakistan, strategy, USA, World » Pakistan And US – A Balancing Act
Pakistan And US – A Balancing Act
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
There are some fundamental truths that both Pakistanis and Americans need to understand about our mutual relationship especially in Afghanistan :
1. Pakistan and US are natural allies. I know the fashionable in India and the US like to talk of a “natural alliance” between their two countries but both India and the US must realize that theirs can be at best a mercantile relationship. Natural alliances are not necessarily based on hollow idealism and grandiose but ridiculous propositions like the “arcs of democracy”. If this was true, Pakistan and Russia would be natural allies but they are not. Natural alliances are based on convergence of geo-strategic objectives and in the case of Pakistan the long term interests of Pakistan and US will always coincide in this region.
2. The US needs Pakistan MORE than Pakistan needs the US: The importance of Pakistan to the US is fundamental. Not only does Pakistan geographically sit at the crossroads of great energy pipelines of the world but will be an important conduit for China – the next global economic superpower. It’s premier port city – Karachi – is give or take two hours by plane from Bombay, Delhi, Dubai, Kabul and ofcourse Islamabad. US maintains an active presence of its intelligence officials all over Pakistan and it is here that US has its eyes and ears in the region. As in 1970-1971, US will look to Pakistan to play not only the role of bridgebuilder with China but perhaps will seek to exercise influence through it. The post-US scenario in Afghanistan is a daunting challenge and a clash between US and Indian/Russian interests in Afghanistan is likely and in this the US will lean on Pakistan. Furthermore former President Richard Nixon , shortly before his death, identified four Muslim countries as holding the key to US interests in the 21st century i.e. Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt. These four are the most modern nation states in all of the Islamic world, with established economies and strong ties with the US. As the third world and Muslim world will move out of US sphere, Pakistan’s importance for US policy makers will only increase.
3. Pakistan also needs the US. Crazed fundamentalists and armchair revolutionaries in Pakistan love to cry hoarse against America. The truth is that Pakistan needs US as well. If Pakistan does not settle terms with the US, the US will most likely be forced to go to the next option which will unacceptable for us. That the US aid is peanuts compared to what the two Afghan wars have cost us is undeniable, but Pakistan needs the US at this critical hour when our economy has taken a nose dive. Let us also not forget that the US is Pakistan’s largest trading partner and that balance of trade is in our favor by a long shot. If Pakistan is important to the US, Pakistan’s importance for other powers such as China is also directly proportional to its influence with the US.
Pakistani political leadership – and by this I mean PPP and PML-N in main- must tread carefully. The game plan of a cynical and wretched entrenched establishment is to present itself as the suitable alternative to civilian democratic leadership. Old habits die hard and the US feels much more comfortable dealing with one-man shows. Therefore the leadership must resist any urge to outflank the establishment on its anti-American rhetoric- it is a trap. The long term objectives of Pakistan’s civilian political elite should be as follows:
1. Long term sustainability of the constitutional democratic process, however unsavory it may be.
2. Peace and trade with India are also key to Pakistan’s progress. India will be the South Asian economic powerhouse. If Pakistan plays its cards right vis a vis US, China and India, it too can create a prosperous mid-sized economy. It is therefore counterproductive to declare a 1000 years war on India.
These two objectives can and will run counter to perceived American interests. If history is any judge, Americans are likely to support the establishment and other elements whenever a government in Pakistan gets out of line. In 1977, the Americans were funding the Jamaat-e-Islami and its leader Mian Muhammad Tufail who were instrumental in General Zia’s coup. In 1999, the right wing Muslim nationalist PML-N and right Hindu Nationalist BJP had turned a remarkable new leaf in Indo-Pak relations, when a miltiary coup was staged against the peace process- first through an act of war and then through a direct coup in Islamabad. What followed was a military dictatorship in Pakistan which came to be one of the most closest US allies in Pakistan’s history.
Some of my American friends ask me why so many of my compatriots hate them. That is a simple one really and I am surprised how many well informed Americans ask this question. They hate you because as a people Pakistanis haven’t seen the benefits of the assistance and aid that you’ve given Pakistan. Had the Americans chosen to deal with a democratic dispensation, instead of putting their eggs in military basket, some of that aid and assistance would have reached down to the common man. In this respect atleast, Kerry Lugar Bill is a huge improvement and Pakistan’s political leadership is well advised not to play into the ghairat lobby’s high pitched rhetoric.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Great game, Imperialism, Pakistan, strategy, USA, World · Tags: 1999, Afghan War, alliance, BJP, China, cold war, Constitution, Democracy, Ghairat Lobby, India, Iran, Jamaat-e-Islami, Mian Tufail, Natural Allies, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pentagon, PML-N, PPP, US
174 Responses to "Pakistan And US – A Balancing Act"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- Rex Minor
said @Kalchakra
Very well said! But do you have any... - Sachbol
said Parliament-Certified Muslim
Ahmadis are not p... - Milestogo
said There is no such thing as Sunni Islam. There is on... - kaalchakra
said Not sure what the problem is with seeing Pakistan... - tajender
said Pak hindus were hoping that saeed will protect the... - Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Majumdar
According to Article 2 of the Constitu...
- tajender said AHEM,u people preapre a story far away from ground...
- Parliament-Certified Muslim said @ Sachbol
Aha so you think that Ahmadis are not...
- Skeptic
said Fingolfin,
Why blame the mullahs? The real proble... - PMA said Dr. Jalal & Dr. Bose both are academician &...
To PTH: its moderators and its serious contributors
There are those of us who are sick and tired of setting right the historical and sociological fallacies of bigots and/or fascists (two separate categories, who occasionally overlap) who have discovered the extraordinary latitude given to commentators at PTH and find this a convenient forum for venting their theories, right or wrong or just plain cuckoo.
These theories are generally variations on the theme of Hindutvavadi, and are utterly irrelevant to the discussions that normally go on here.
We are tired of it because these commentators come here with bad intentions and in bad faith, and because their excesses create a prejudice against us.
Typically, they have a grossly negative view of Islam as a religion and of Muslims as a parish.
They identify that religion as being natural to a small section of the Middle East; it is not clear why their attentions and analytical abilities are concentrated on this religion, and not on the others which arose in the self-same area. By their logic, Christians, and before them, Jews, also belonging to religions which started here, should find themselves nowhere else but on this restricted part of the earth.
There is no attempt at explaining what should happen to the millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims who inhabit other parts of the earth other than those where their respective religions arose. Assuming that some of those were migrants, there is also no attempt at explaining what provision is suggested for those in parts outside the Middle East who might have spiritual needs.
Effectively these not very well thought through ideas and assumptions boil down to a simplistic argument about what constitutes a Hindu, based largely on a geographical foundation to the term, who may legitimately call himself or herself a Hindu, who may legitimately inhabit these lands and what therefore the present constitution of the South Asian sub-continent should be.
To summarise this very boring and tedious argument, which gets us nowhere in particular,
* a mythical person or people found on the banks of the Sindhu is a Hindu.
* There is no distinction between Hind and Hindu. Hindu is a latter-day invention, and the earlier term used for inhabitants of the banks of the Sindhu was Hindi or Hindu, without distinction.
* Therefore Hindu is not a religious grouping but an ethnic term, of uncertain ethnicity, designedly diverse, therefore validatory of diversity of all sorts,
* Therefore Hindu by itself is a category which covers members of all other religions, and is not an exclusive religious category by itself.
In order to guard themselves against the criticism that the concepts of the Hindus were imported into the land of the Sindhu, just as much as all other concepts were, they deny any correspondence between Aryan and Hindu, on the grounds that while the Aryan may have been originally an ‘import’, their admixture with the original inhabitants led to a people of widely mixed origin, whose homeland progressively became the banks of the Sindhu.
To quote:
The aryans became hindus when they settled down in the Sindhu river basin and their western counterparts (the iranians) called them hindus (from Sindhu) – that is noticed first in the 3rd century BC. By then the aryans were already spread over whole of north India and had lost any loyalty to any place or power outside of India. Their religion was still not called hinduism (a term that comes up in british Calcutta in 1834 AD).
This both glides easily over the fate of the original inhabitants at the hands of the conquering northern barbarians, and also conflates the highly diverse ethnicity, linguistics and even genotypical origins of the rest of the sub-continent, including, and especially emphasising the east and the south; other variations and sub-variations within the northern tribes is of course not to be considered for the purposes of this brilliant analysis.
Our commentator typically describes himself as a neutral party, compelled by the force of overwhelming logic to support what he carefully describes as Hindutvavadi, not his creed but regrettably difficult to refute. It is therefore by default the necessary creed of all who are not irretrievably corrupted by the alien philosophies of the true outsiders, those from Makkah and Madina, who, unlike those from Balkh and Kabul and Zabul, or those of Tibeto-Burmese stock settled as far west as Bengal, or those of Dravidian origin settled in Deccan India either as autocthones or as migrants from other parts of the world as yet unidentified, failed to mingle with the original inhabitants. In the opinion of our contributor(s), presented to us as scientific logic (without the unnecessary burden of scientific process), they therefore constituted themselves into an indigestible mass of self-excluded separatists.
The management of PTH may kindly consider setting up a separate thread similar to the famous thread “In Pakistan a Sex Industry has begun to Boom”, – a suitable title might be “The Pornography of the Intellect” – and to assign Updike, Neel123, G. Vishvas, Tathagata Mukherjee in his various avatars and all such trolls and their comments to that thread.
YLH – Surprisingly not a very good piece.
Hoss oberservation regarding the article seems correct (to me)
I agree with Vajra’s observations on the saffron trolls. We really do not need to have them. They take up bandwith and vitiate the atmosphere.
Of course, what to do about them is a call that the site owners will take. We are just voicing our opinion.
Milind Kher (January 17, 2010 at 7:07 pm):
You say “We really do not need to have them” here at PTH. By ‘them’ I suppose you mean Hindu Nationalists, the ‘saffron brigade’. But what do you mean by ‘we’? What about the overwhelming number of Indian Nationalists like yourself forever present on this site and skewing up each and every discussion what ought be a Pakistan National debate. Does PTH need ‘them’ here to “take up bandwidth and vitiate the atmosphere”. Just think about it.
an interesting quandary for you.
If you keep it open, you get swamped by India and Indians
If you close up, you end up in isolation, like a frog in a well.
Sounds like the quandary of Pakistan itself.
And this discussion of china and thar coal and Central asia and the US seems to be about how to be open except to India.
interesting problem.
PMA:
You say “We really do not need to have them” here at PTH. By ‘them’ I suppose you mean Hindu Nationalists, the ’saffron brigade’. But what do you mean by ‘we’? What about the overwhelming number of Indian Nationalists like yourself forever present on this site and skewing up each and every discussion what ought be a Pakistan National debate. Does PTH need ‘them’ here to “take up bandwidth and vitiate the atmosphere” Just think about it.
“We” are the group of people who share the ideals of mutual humanity that runs amongst us, irrespective of our race, creed or nationality. We have found that there is a similar human alive and kicking within us, who has insatiable curiosity about the history and realizes that most of our historical misfortunes and unnecessary baggage is the product of one simple word: “ignorance”. This ignorance is soaked in hatred based on religion, ethnicity and nationalistic fervor. We believe that sharing ideas expose us to the rather unsurprising fact; that regurgitating hatred will keep repeating the history; that our differences are a natural consequence of friction that arises due to rigidity of the mold that we cast around us. And that our differences are inevitable, yet never insolvable, provided we talk to each other, share ideas and analyze them together, without getting on the grand pedestals of religion and nationality that many of our colleagues would love us to do.
We believe that history is the best guidebook, and that a successful future is better guided by an unbiased study of history, and learning from it by employing the best tool available at our disposal; our brains and our collective wisdoms. No blind prophesies and rhetorical nationalism/religionism will help us make a better future; they will merely repeat the sordid history in form or another.
That we have come together on the Pak Tea House is a testament to the vision of its founder, and a dedication of its participants who have relentlessly shared ideas, found a common ground that was even a surprise to ourselves. We have challenged the rabid fanatic Islamist coterie, saffron brigade characters, an nationalist “lite” like yourself who have a never ending itch at why a website with a name Pak be frequented by many Indians who have nevertheless shown nothing but the sincerest of wishes towards Pakistan.
This is what differentiates this website from the thousands out there, where participants merely thump each other backs, shut down their PCs ever firmer in their resolve that only they are right and the other side is blasted and doomed because of its inherently flawed ideology. Their we is based on this narrow vision where an Indian shouts and spouts at an Indian website, an Islamist shouts at an Islamic extremist forum, and a Pakistani blasts Indians and the hidden hands with his comrades. Thankfully nothing like that has happened at PTH, and as long as few of us are participating and moderating on this forum, nothing like this will be allowed to happen.
@ Updike/Vishwas:
It is rather amusing to see someone so devoid of any vision, and so bereft of any decency that even when banned, he keeps trying to sneak in on this forum under different aliases. You have heard it before from me and others; you are not welcome here to suffocate the discussions with your hate and emptiness, and this time we’ll be making an effort to preclude you for good from PTH.
AZW, my post is awaiting moderation for almost 12 hours now. May I know why?
No matter, that post is irrelevant now, seeing so much water has flowed under the bridge since then!
Sameet, this was due to the web link in your comments. All comments with hyperlinks have to be approved (for good reason I must say). Somehow it got missed over last few hours. Sorry about that, but your comment is up on this thread now.
PMA and Ammar (also Hoss):
My question remains unattended. Hoss charged me with dwelling in the past. I was talking of the present and the future shorn of Kashmir and the bad memories of ’47. Hoss says he will address this in a future piece: I look forward to reading it.
None of the eminent Aga Shahi’s commentary makes sense outside the context of a continuing Indo-Pak hostility that runs well into the future.
I was not at all comparing India with China-My point was merely that trade does not imply a proxy relationship.
I have no doubt that Indo-Pak friendship can be imagined only in a yet unseen future, but that was not the context of my question which arose out of Hoss’ view that even without Kashmir and ’47 India and Pakistan would be maneuvering against each other. I asked why that should be so.
Specifically, I asked why India and Pakistan could not be friends if these two causes did not obtrude into the relationship, unless the premise is that India and Pakistan cannot be friends in principle. So far into the discussion the impression persists that it is a matter of principle not to be friends.
Achutha
“I also don’t understand how pakistan can have better relations with India without accepting its regional dominance.”
You appear to be confused. Your assumption is that only the trade relations lead to better relations.
I look at trade relations as the last elements in relations between the two neighboring countries. From your list only the US and Canada are the two neighboring countries that share similar cultural background and after 1812(the last war between the US and Canada, I assume.), they have been able to maintain cordial relations and have developed trade relations too.
On the other hand, we have Japan-China relations, China and Vietnam and South Korea relations, India and China relations, off and on India and Bangladesh relations. We also have Turkey and Greece relations. In most of these cases, the relations are not what they could be, despite several cultural similarities.
“a south asian economic zone with a dominant india but with prospering countries around it is not possible or not desirable? It hurts the pakistan soul, but would it hurt the pakistani state?”
Dominance, real or not, is an issue it may not appear real to you but Pakistani business and Pakistan establishment also considers that a serious matter. Let us say if India wants to eliminate dominance in relations with Pakistan what, in your opinion, can India do to achieve that goal?
Let me also ask you this: what do you think are the three things priority wise that India can do to improve relations with Pakistan? I am pretty much aware of what you think Pakistan can do to improve relations, I am interested in finding out what India can do to improve relations.
Since it appears to me that you advocate that better trade relations lead to better overall relations, I am tempted to ask: Can you prioritize three things that will help Pakistan in developing mutually beneficial trade relations with India?
Thanks.
Hayyer
January 17, 2010 at 10:44 pm
“I was not at all comparing India with China-My point was merely that trade does not imply a proxy relationship.”
Developing India and US relations are not just trade relations. The developing military relations coupled with India’s almost secondary position in trading, adds to the thinking that India will act as the US proxy. Like Pakistan for years did. It was Pakistan’s dependence on the US military supplies and economic support that led to Pakistan becoming a proxy state for the US military interest during the cold war.
“I asked why India and Pakistan could not be friends if these two causes did not obtrude into the relationship, unless the premise is that India and Pakistan cannot be friends in principle.”
Pakistan shares a common cultural heritage with India and that provides a strong platform for better relations but the same heritage also provides major stumbling blocks too. Often the negatives take over the positives. Though at present I don’t think that the Kashmir is a major stumbling block but the narrative developed around Kashmir will perpetuate.
We have to somehow develop a narrative that can find a way between the competitive strategic interests that collide. Briefly, India wants to be a regional power and India does not hide it. Pak sees that as a threat and India fails to provide any reason to ease that threat.
I will try and finish my article on Kashmir soon.
To PTH
Your reactions are not concentrating on the problem which I am trying to describe but of the type “call someone a dog and shoot him” (and revel in shooting him).
Small truths are found everywhere – they have to be filtered out and collected for a synoptic view.
This accusation that I want to spread hate is just self-righteous on the part of those who make it.
The word hindu has a very complicated history – neither the hindutvavadis nor their opponents ever take the full view. Furthermore muslim history-writing is known for its bias. The harshness with which hindus are criticized and dismissed has to be compared with the soft velvet handglove approach to the much worse ill-deeds of muslims – in India and elsewhere. This unfairness is worsenig the problem. I can understand that a blog managed in islamic-totalitarian Pakistan must practise such an unfairness in favor of islam, just in order to survive – but the result then is not objectively correct. This also explains the collective emotions that are brought up against me. Hounding me will (may) give you satisfaction, but not bring you nearer to truth. This competition about who hounds me (out) more is pathetic for a forum that calls itself liberal and progressive.
Hayyer (January 17, 2010 at 10:44 pm):
You have given answer to your own question. Pakistan and India in the present set up could never be friends. The two are each others contradiction. For any hope for the future, number of things have to happen first. For one India has to drop the notion that Sub-continent India is one country and that Sub-continentals are one Indian nation. India will never do that that it means allowing emergence of other nations within the Sub-continent and by that I do not mean the present day Bangladesh and Pakistan, which India sees as one-time exception grudgingly granted under duress. That is the ‘Indian principle or doctrine’ under which it justifies its occupation of Kashmir and its Northeastern states. Pakistan on her part will keep insisting on the so called Two-nation Theory and demand parity with India which India so far has sternly refused to do. The present setup has to change one way or the other for things to change. India could do that by creating ‘western bangladesh’ but inconveniently the Pak Army happens to be in the way.
AZW (January 17, 2010 at 10:01 pm):
I am sure that I am soliciting further caustic remarks from you. But I hate to burst your bubble that you have no monopoly on “ideals of mutual humanity”. Oh don’t let a narrow minded shallow nationalist “lite” like myself stop you from holding hands and singing kumbaya with your comrades. After all you hold the moderating golden keys on this forum. Please do continue to live in your self created imaginary comfortable cyberspace. Who knows you may be the next Nobel laureate. Stranger things have happened before. Cheers.
to PMA
Resurrecting the two-nation theory based on religion means Pakistan must be divided on the basis of religion too. 20-25% of Pakistan area will have to be given to hindus (as was the population component of hindus in 1947). Similarly 40% of Bangladesh area for hindus.
If language defines nation then too Pakistan must be divided into at least 6 parts. Simultaneously religion must be completely banished from public or political life.
remember your own heroes…
Check out this topic on First Pakistani home made Electric Car….
http://123surfer.blogspot.com/2010/01/pakistans-first-electric-car.html
Hoss,
you said “Your assumption is that only the trade relations lead to better relations.”
not exactly. I believe that two countries cannot have good relations unless they ALSO have good trade relations, or at the very least, the absence of efforts to obstruct trade relations. That is not the same as “ONLY trade relations LEAD to better relations”.
Except in the case of client/patron affairs, I can think of no countries that have good relations in general but stunted trading relations.
the opposite is true. there are countries that trade, such as india and china, or china and the US, but do not have good relations. It is possible to have trade cooperation without good relations and it is possible to kick off good relations on matters other than trade.
I cannot see any circumstance in which India and pakistan have good relations but without intertwined economies. You can imagine such relations if you really want to, but I cannot see them becoming real.
In fact I will go so far as to say that without trade, any good relations between two countries are ONLY at the government to government level. They become real, and people to people, only when people get a person stake in the relationship, and thats through trade.
Good relations are meaningless at the people to people level without trade.
Also, Hoss, you say that for pakistan indian dominance is very serious business. I accept that it is, but my question wasn’t answered, so I will ask it again:
“Can you help me understand why, if you leave aside just the emotional revulsion to India’s dominance, a south asian economic zone with a dominant india but with prospering countries around it is not possible or not desirable? It hurts the pakistan soul, but would it hurt the pakistani state?”
As to your question:
“What do you think are the three things priority wise that India can do to improve relations with Pakistan?”
I don’t think India can do anything to improve relations with the pakistani military or with anybody in the political establishment who is liable to curry favor with the military. but there are plenty of things that India can do to build relations directly with the pakistani people, if the military will allow it.
It can implement mechanism that allow pakistani inviduals and companies who want to do business in India, or with Indian firms to be able to do so without restriction. It can propose a new treaty for the indus waters that optimizes water use for the entire watershed, instead of locally. It can grant easy visas to pakistani artists and tourists. It can offer to open up the indian market to pakistani goods and services without restriction. It can offer transit of pakistani goods to bangladesh and sri lanka overland (if thats desired). It can set up a worker program that enables indian companies to hire the best the brightest pakistanis who would like to work in India.
I am going to guess that you are going to spit at this. you don’t want it. what you want is strategic parity and the curtailment of Indian hegemony. I get that you want that, but I just don’t see that you’re going to get it. So where does that leave us?
PMA:
Your comments are no less important than mine, Vajra, Milind, YLH, Hossp or any other (except a few like Vishwas or Rashid for obvious reasons).
No one is questioning your contribution, and no one has ever censored any of your comments. But this forum is enrichened by all participants here, even if we vehemently disagree with each other. I don’t have monoply on “mutual humanity”. But I do have a huge amount of appreciation and respect for this phenomenon; PTH being a better example; where we share, bounce, challange and accept better ideas all the time without any regard for the nationality and religion of the other participant. Let’s keep this good experience going.
Achutha
“why, if you leave aside just the emotional revulsion to India’s dominance, a south asian economic zone with a dominant india but with prospering countries around it is not possible or not desirable? ”
I have answered that question. What you fail to figure out that it is not about emotional revulsion to India, it is all about the hard facts on the ground.
As you can see from our own posts, you fail to come down from your high perch and still believe that Indian dominance is the only way. I asked you couple of simple questions but it seems to me that you really don’t think of beyond, “I don’t think India can do anything to improve relations with the pakistani military or with anybody in the political establishment who is liable to curry favor with the military.”
You detest the idea of relations between the two governments but you promote exactly the same thing when you claim that India can improve relations by offering the water treaty and the passage to Bangladesh. ( it is beside the point that Pakistan and India already have a water treaty.)
Why is it difficult for you to say that Pakistan and Indian can open up air waves for each other’s cable channels and movies? Why not exchange students or teachers or helping each others educational institutions. How about visa free travel to people and specifically to artists? Developing relations between the two countries is a long row to hoe but it can be done and trade is not the only way.
I am just surprised that you want to have better relations with Pakistan minus the Pakistan army and the Pak establishment. We in Pakistan have major grievances with the Pak army and the Pak establishment. There is a constant battle with the rogue elements in Pak establishment but I don’t think that Pakistan would be willing to have better relations with any country that demands that the Pak army is disbanded first. Pak army is still a Pak institution, it needs reforms, actually needs major overhaul to the extent that we really need to fire all the Army officers above the Major Rank but no one in Pakistan is against the institution and India would have to deal with what we have not what it wants .
Despite your emphasis on trade relations, you still can’t come up with any response to my question about would be mutual benefits of the trade. Even though my question should have been to ask you how Pakistan would benefit from trade with India.
As I said if anyone thinks that trade relations should come before the cultural or people to people relations he/she basically does not want better relations and is only interested in some sort of one way relations, where India would dominate in trade and force its strategic interests on a smaller country.
I guess thats it from my side on this issue.
PMA sb,
For one India has to drop the notion that Sub-continent India is one country and that Sub-continentals are one Indian nation.
This is only partly, it is true that many Indians have held this notion. But that is true more about Indians who were born pre-1971. Most of the post 1971 generation (to which I belong) do not share this notion, although we do admit that there are strong historical and cultural ties. In another 10-15 years, most of the votaries of United India will be in retirement and a new generation will take charge which will hold the opinion that Partition (or Separation) was a natural and legitimate act.
India will never do that that it means allowing emergence of other nations within the Sub-continent
So? Did Pakistan allow the emergence of other nations – Bdesh for eg?
That is the ‘Indian principle or doctrine’ under which it justifies its occupation of Kashmir and its Northeastern states.
So under what principle does Pakistan justify the occupation of Baluchistan.
Regards
Independence for Kashmir (whole of it – and not just the one under indian control) cannot be separated from independence for Tibet, Balochistan, Sin Kiang, Kurdistan, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. etc.
In fact the case for independence of the latter cases is stronger than for Kashmir.
Nehru had the decency to promise a referendum – which could not be carried out manily due to the activities carried out by Pakistan and China. The leaders (of China, Pakistan, Turkey etc.) did not even have this democratic decency.
So the decent are punished and the ruthless are rewarded. China’s arguments for claiming Tibet are purely imperialist (because some former chinese emperors sent their ambans to Tibet).
PMA Sahib:
“India could do that by creating ‘western bangladesh’ but inconveniently the Pak Army happens to be in the way.”
You must either be very distracted or else you are in a devilish mood today to mention the Pakistani Army and Bangladesh in the same breath like this.
Most people (including many B’deshis) have a very different recollection surrounding the role of the army in the formation of ‘Eastern Bangladesh’ than the one that you seem to imply.
Regards.
Hoss:
“Developing India and US relations are not just trade relations. The developing military relations coupled with India’s almost secondary position in trading, adds to the thinking that India will act as the US proxy. Like Pakistan for years did. It was Pakistan’s dependence on the US military supplies and economic support that led to Pakistan becoming a proxy state for the US military interest during the cold war.”
It is only thinking. It is an assumption not supported either by the facts or the historical record.
India is nowhere near dependent on the US for arms. Its arms purchases from the US are minuscule, even in comparison to Israel. India has bought some military air transport and just a few weapon locating radar guns. Also a landing ship. These amount to less than two billion dollars. India does not consider the US to be a reliable defence supplier. By comparison India has an ongoing 15 billion dollar purchase programme with Russia; tanks, Sukhoi 30 and Pakfa stealth planes. Is India a Russian proxy? Is India an Israeli proxy? Pakistan’s assumptions of an impending Indian proxy relationship are based on the history of its own relationship with the US. It cannot and should not be mapped onto India’s emerging relationship with that country.
The 10 billion dollar contract for aircraft is still in an evaluation stage with four countries competing.
“We have to somehow develop a narrative that can find a way between the competitive strategic interests that collide. Briefly, India wants to be a regional power and India does not hide it. Pak sees that as a threat and India fails to provide any reason to ease that threat.”
I entirely agree with this view with the modification that our strategic interests should be no different from what they were in 1946, unalloyed by the unfortunate developments thereafter. Why does Pakistan feel threatened and not say Bangladesh or Sri Lanka thought they may not like Indians either? Because they haven’t got disputes like Kashmir going. India feels threatened by Pakistan and is building itself up against Pakistan and China. India could reassure Pakistan if it did not feel threatened itself.
India seeks recognition as a power of sorts. To what effect I can’t imagine apart from the tooing and froing of diplomats, ministers and such like at big power conferences. Hegemony, if that means the power to intimidate, is unlikely. China does flex its muscles all over the world and India with its puny capacity may want to show off its pectoral development too, but as pectorals go Pakistan has plenty of its own. Suffice to say here that Pakistan feels threatened by India just as India feels threatened by Pakistan. But it need not be that way without Kashmir and ’47. I will try to develop this line of argument in my response to PMA below.
PMA:
“You have given answer to your own question.”
I don’t see it.
“Pakistan and India in the present set up could never be friends. The two are each others contradiction.”
This is the principle that I questioned, the principle that India and Pakistan are not natural allies but natural enemies. In your response quoted below you have in a way given a glimmer of the reasons for this line of thought.
“For any hope for the future, number of things have to happen first. For one India has to drop the notion that Sub-continent India is one country and that Sub-continentals are one Indian nation.”
While a huge majority of Indians are prepared to say, without duress that the sub-continent is not one country with one people, it would be dishonest to deny the commonalities of history culture and language.
I think I can now understand the principle of eternal enmity with India. You seem to be saying that Pakistan’s identity is not safe, not even created unless India renounces the commonalities. No announcement, no solemn assurance, no treaty of eternal goodwill will remove the threat. You imply that India has to forget its history to enable you to create your own. There is plenty that is common between India’s North and Pakistan or between West Bengal, Orissa, Assam and Bangladesh. How can it be denied.
Because it is difficult if not impossible to deny the commonalities, a fictive narrative is created that serves not just the Pakistan Army but the entire discourse of enmity with the ‘other’.
You then proceed to argue further, thus,
“India will never do that that it means allowing emergence of other nations within the Sub-continent and by that I do not mean the present day Bangladesh and Pakistan, which India sees as one-time exception grudgingly granted under duress. That is the ‘Indian principle or doctrine’ under which it justifies its occupation of Kashmir and its Northeastern states.
India does admit that there are seven countries in SAARC countries. But you want it to go further than that and say that India by itself is not one country but many countries. We are on slippery grounds here. There are many kinds of people and culture in India, and also in Pakistan. Are you suggesting that unless India breaks up into its political units representing its constituent sub cultural identities there will always be hostility? Do you recommend that course only for India or do you include Pakistan in that prescription? Because otherwise your prescription for peace with India amounts to nothing more than its disintegration.
“Pakistan on her part will keep insisting on the so called Two-nation Theory and demand parity with India which India so far has sternly refused to do.”
I have explained earlier why India does not accept the TNT. We don’t consider our Muslims to be a separate nation. We do not think Hindus are a nation. That is what the RSS thinks but they haven’t managed to prove that when they get the chance to do so every five years or so.
There remains the issue of parity with India. All nations are sovereign, but they aren’t all equal in area, military and economic strength and population. What does parity with India mean? How does India agree to parity with Pakistan? It is a bigger nation with two enemies. How can it agree to an arms parity with one of them?
Pakistan could and should seek parity with India’s growth rate. It is not India that is holding this back. Trade would help both countries but Pakistan does not want it.
“The present setup has to change one way or the other for things to change. India could do that by creating ‘western bangladesh’ but inconveniently the Pak Army happens to be in the way.”
Balochistan, if India is interfering there, (I have no way of knowing) should be seen as the equivalent of decades of Pakistani interference in India’s northeast through Bangladesh, and in UP through Nepal. It was revealed recently that Gen. Musharraf gave interview to Assamese separatists on his visit there. Bangladesh was a one off and conditions for its creation were created by the Pak Army. It is ridiculous to imagine plans by the Indian Army for a dash across Pakistan to liberate Baluchistan.
Hayyer,
“You imply that India has to forget its history to enable you to create your own…”
Wonderfully put. I hope to be this articulate and erudite someday…
Hoss,
Hayyer has rebutted you in a manner I can only admire. To certain, almost rhetorical questions that you directed at Achuta, I would humbly submit the following:
1)Why is it difficult for you to say that Pakistan and Indian can open up air waves for each other’s cable channels and movies?—-It has happened; youtube hosts geo tv and NDTV feeds for all to see. Hindi movies are being shown on Pakistani theatres and if you produce good cinema, enough demand will be generated for Lollywood to be shown in India.(Please no Maula Jats, its a request). Hell, the fact that you and me are interacting on PTH signifies exchange of ideas, which is what you basically implying.
2)Why not exchange students or teachers or helping each others educational institutions. How about visa free travel to people and specifically to artists? —-Happening sir, if anything, the Pakistani government rejects visas of Indian artists.
3) Pak army is still a Pak institution, it needs reforms, actually needs major overhaul to the extent that we really need to fire all the Army officers above the Major Rank but no one in Pakistan is against the institution and India would have to deal with what we have not what it wants—Agreed completely. Please fire all the generals and make sure the retired ones are playing golf rather than giving training courses to zealous students in Muridke. On a serious note, we object to Pak Army trying to bleed us by a thousand cuts. Not the Pak Army defending its country. Get it?
4) Even though my question should have been to ask you how Pakistan would benefit from trade with India.—-You need a international trade theory 101 class. I am not an economist, but the benefit of trade with India that I can think of from the top of my mind is, massive market for your goods, cheaper inputs and raw materials for your business, more efficient production due to massive economies of scale. Serbia recently decided to apply for EU membership, yes the same Serbia that got bombed by French and British planes, now wants to join a club consisting of these countries, to be part of its common market. By your logic, I am wondering what substance the collective Serbian leadership is imbibing!
Hayyer
“Developing India and US relations are not just trade relations.”
I was talking about the developing relations and you respond from the present state. So your response is not really accurate.
Is there is a reason for me to repeat that India has a huge trade deal with the US coming after the nuke agreement or currently India is in the market to spend $10 billion for military hardware from the US. I guess you have not read the previous related posts by me on this
thread.
Sumeet,
It seems to me that you simply have no clue about the issues being discussed here. You are saying that you tube replaces the actual broadcast of the channels. I am just amused…..
Your item #4 is nothing more than an ill informed person’s rant.
Btw, are you really this naive to equate British and French Planes to EU planes?
@Hoss
I am sorry, but it doesn’t come across clearly who is the most naive – Sumeet or you.
If you seriously think that there is a $10 billion armaments deal with the US in the offing, I’d like some of the stuff you are smoking. There is not a single such deal on the horizon. The US – two planes actually, the F16 and the F18 – are contenders for the MRCA stand-by purchase, in chase that is what you have in mind, but there are several others, including two Russian derivatives, in the race. Ironically, the greatest aversion to them from all involved is on account of their American origin. Light-weight 155 MM howitzers for the mountain divisions were proposed by a Singapore company; these are licensed from BAE, and that is the other close possibility. They sold some Hercules planes already, and had a wistful thought or two about the next two types in the line-up, which is emphatically not going to happen. They are nowhere in naval procurement.
Can you break out the $10 billion you keep referring to?
Do you have even the faintest clue as to what is going on?
Hoss,
How does actual broadcast of channels make things different than what is already happening through the internet?Why will actual broadcasts be a game changer? Keep in mind that PTV was broadcast in India a few years back. It doesnt seem to have changed anything on the ground.
Rant, how so? How have I been “speaking or shouting in a wild and impassioned way at length”. Granted, I am ill-informed. Do enlighten me. How does Pakistan not get benefited from trade with India?
British planes, French Planes=NATO. Britain and France are in EU. Serbia wants to join a club consisting of countries that bombed it. I thought you were analytical enough to figure that out yourself.
Vajra, I did not know that you are completely unaware of what is going on in India.
A little dose of google can help you guys. Try googling.
news.rediff.com/column/2009/sep/24/china-worried-over-us-india-military-cooperation.htm
livemint.com/2010/01/17213649/Gates-aims-to-extend-India-US.html
“Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government is currently negotiating a Logistics and Services Agreement with the US. Also known as the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement, Washington has signed similar arrangements with several other countries, mostly NATO members, which allow refueling and complete access to all US ships and aircraft.
The US is set to emerge as a large exporter of arms to India which plans to buy about US$30 billion worth of military equipment between 2007-2012. This figure means India is the developing world’s largest arms purchaser. Since the 1960s, and until recently, the Indian market was closed to US defense contractors, because of Washington’s displeasure with India’s friendly ties with the Soviet Union.
The first major sale of US military hardware was a refurbished warship, the USS Trenton, renamed INS Jalashwa. It is India’s second largest naval combat vessel and is participating in the current military exercise. Another large transaction was the acquisition of six Hercules C-130J military transport aircraft worth $1 billion. It was India’s largest arms purchase from the US, so far.
Discussions are also ongoing between India and US manufacturer Lockheed Martin to buy eight P3-C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft at a cost of $650 million, coupled with 16 multi-mission MH-60R Sikorsky helicopters costing about $400 million. Raytheon is negotiating the sale of its Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems to India, too.
Last week, India floated its biggest-ever military tender, for the purchase of 126 multi-role combat aircraft worth $10 billion. Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are lobbying hard to sell their F-16 and F/A-18 fighter planes to India.
India has also been approaching the American arms industry through Israel, since many Israeli systems have either been jointly developed with US companies or depend on US components and technologies.
Over the past decade, Israel has emerged as India’s second-largest arms supplier. India is now Israel’s biggest arms export market, and purchased $1.5 billion worth of military hardware from it during 2002-06 out of worldwide Israeli arms sales of $2.76 billion.
“India’s military ties with the US are part of a larger strategic and political relationship, which is asymmetrical and one-sided,” said Achin Vanaik, professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi University. “The US is the dominant partner, and India the subordinate one. Rather than balance the US, India is bandwagoning it.”
Sumeet,
“British planes, French Planes=NATO. Britain and France are in EU. Serbia wants to join a club consisting of countries that bombed it. I thought you were analytical enough to figure that out yourself.”
Iran should leave the UN because the US and Israel are also members there? What an illogical web you build…
Hoss,
Now it is my turn to say that it is you who is confused.
It is not difficult for me to say that the two countries can open up their air waves to each other. I’d be happy to have that happen. You asked “what do you think are the three things priority wise that India can do to improve relations with Pakistan?” I offered a few ideas that but did not claim that it was a comprehensive list. I also did not talk about reciprocal actions because you did not ask for what could be done reciprocally. You asked what India could do. Now you take me to task for not saying what can be done reciprocally. Everything I said can be done reciprocally. It should be done reciprocally. India will have immense benefits from good relations with Pakistan.
However, I begin to doubt your standing I offered a renegotiation of the IWT as something India could do. I presume its something the Pakistani people would respond positively to. I presume this because India gets accused on stealing pakitan’s water and holding pakistan’s farming hostage and much is made about baglihar, even though India is in compliance of the IWT. The world bank ruled that other than for some minor modifications, baglihar is compliant with the IWT. And now this business with India and Pakistan racing to finish their respective projects on the Jhelum: if india completes its project first (which it is on schedule to do), Pakistan will have to abandon its project according to the IWT. I understand that is generating substantial tensions. I suggest that a renegotiation could help improve relations.
But you did not show an honest interest in considering or discussing that. You acted as if there is no issue around the IWT . You chose not to engage with what the Pakistani people might want in regards to the IWT and went straight to whether my suggestion jives with my skepticism about the Pakistani military.
Sir, I begin to see that you have no answers for the fundamental question I ask.
I think that trade, cultural, people to people relations all go hand in hand and have to go together. I am happy for India to have open trade, cultural, and people to people relations. I want visa free travel between the two countries, free trade and transit, fully convertible currencies, mutual defense pacts, subcontinentally optimized utilization of resources, and all the rest of it.
I think it is vitally important for India to have good relations with Pakistan and with all the other countries in the region. I dream of the day when Burma and Pakistan open up and there is a string of contiguous trade all along the bottom of Asia, from Malaysia to Turkey, plus to the north, the middleast, to Indonesia and Australia.
I am only saying that Pakistan has a natural status in this continuum, and it should work towards making the best for itself that it can within that continuum instead of chasing strategic parity with India or seeking to “contain Indian hegemony”. It may succeed at stunting India, but it is doing itself far more harm than it is doing to India.
Pakistan’s convictions about india’s mal-intent and obsession with limiting Indian hegemony are leading the country down a dead end road.
It is very well to mock me for “sitting on a high horse”, but the fact is that the opportunities for Pakistan to progress and prosper are vastly greater than merely serving as a conduit for china or the central asian states, yet Pakistan keeps driving itself into that narrow alley just so as to not be friends with India on terms that would require pakistan’s national ego to climb down.
Hoss,
Iran should leave the UN because the US and Israel are also members there? What an illogical web you build…
Well, when you put it that way, I do admit my point look silly. I gave a bad example I guess. Essentially my point was nations have complete relations encompassing the full gamut from trade to cultural relations and what have you with nations they considered enemies before.
Hayyer,
weapons purchasing does seem to correlate to close relations between countries, if imperfectly. India was never cozy with france or sweden who were just looking to earn export dollars, but its a little hard to deny that India grew close to the soviet union especially after 1971 and the indian arsenal become Russianized. Now with relations with the US and israel opening up, they have become suppliers.
Where Hoss goes wrong, I think, is to assume that a country that purchases weapons becomes a proxy for the seller state.
He is right in that the US does have a track record of using arms supply as a means of extracting cooperation. You get shiny american toys if you do what the US wants, they get taken away if you stop.
the world is littered with states that have had that happen to them.
So it is understandable that for Hoss there would be a correlation between US arms sales to India and India becoming a proxy for the US.
I think there is a kernel of truth in it. India will probably value the relationship enough to go along with the US on things like voting against Iran in the UN when it would otherwise not have.
but on the whole, I think that you are right and Hoss is not. India’s track record is one of bloody minded independence, and a refusal to cooperate. While India was nominally a soviet ally for a period, india never actually did anything much for the soviets. Nehru happily accepted american largess in the form of aid, weapons, food, but also cocked his snook at the US.
There has never been anything that India wanted so badly and that was so difficult to get, for it become a proxy state. there still isn’t. So while India and the US are liable to move closer, I don’t think India is about to become a US proxy.
At any rate, this seems a bit of a red herring. Are we really talking about pakistan worrying about India being a proxy for the US? Other than just the idea of the enemy being allied with the US, what real threat does it pose to pakistan? Is India going to invade pakistan on america’s say so when it would not or could not for its own interests?
very confusing.
Achutha
January 18, 2010 at 10:19 pm
I agree with a few of your observations. It is possible that Pakistan is overreacting. It is also possible the democratic traditions in India would not let it fall as far out as Pakistan did. Proxy does appear to be a strong word here.
But can we also discount the trends in India with jingoistic connotations? So there are many things that still have to be played out.
As I said in my earlier post, “We have to somehow develop a narrative that can find a way between the competitive strategic interests that collide.”
We discuss these issues from the narrative that has already been developed and I think we need to change that. I also think only the liberals and progressives have the ability to change the narrative in both countries and since the liberals in both countries are in political doldrums, chances of that happening in the near future are slim.
sumeet + Hoss
how similar are the EU and the UN? and now you have made me too break rule no. 4 of the 4 rules of debate since times immemorial: “example ki £#@% nahin maartay”.
how similar are the EU and the UN ?
About as similar as a marriage between willing partners is, to a membership in a health club
One is an economic and a political union among a very select group and the other is a World body open to all.
Sumeet is refreshingly openminded but he is as gullible as Hoss Sahib is glib.
Regards.
Not one but two smarty pants:)
It was all about membership of an organization-any organization, not the purpose of the organization.
“It was all about membership of an organization-any organization, not the purpose of the organization.”
In that case SAARC is just as good as the EU and EU is just as good as the NATO!!
Hold that thought for a sec…
If SAARC is pretty close to NATO….
then remind me, what is the India Pakistan argument about?
Regards.
Sorry Hoss Sahib, I couldn’t just resist that last lighthearted post.
You needen’t take it seriously or respond to it.
Regards.
Aaaah….the law of unintended consequences….look what my hilariously bad example has wrought
I am enjoying the banter…
@AZW,
I appreciate the philosphy at PTH. I rate it as currently the best blog that I participate in.
To milind kher
I too
I may participate -
YLH willing (insha-yasirlatifhamdani)
Updike
i don’t think i’ll let YLH take the credit for my work… as far as your latest two or three repetitions of the same old drivel are concerned.
even if you had the decency to be as strictly repetetive with your ID as you have been with your posts… you would have had little chance of being allowed to carry on with wasting everyone’s time.
so keep posting if you must. however little time it takes you to keep repeating the same old rubbish, it takes even less to press DELETE.
Let people read first and then you can delete. Give them an hour or four.
Instant-delete is frightening totalitarianism.
Drivel is a very subjective term in any discussion.
updike/vishwas/etc
“Drivel is a very subjective term in any discussion.”
but repetition of the same, parrot-like, is there for all to see. nothing subjective about that.
strictly indian readers here can use (and have used) their own ‘subjective’ judgement to decide whether you are a nauseating idiot or vajra is a ‘fascist’, ‘frighteningly totalitarian’ (go back and re-read vajra January 17, 2010 at 4:32 pm To PTH: its moderators and its serious contributors)
@Hoss
Now I am beginning to agree with the chorus of people who insist that you are confused.
I don’t need to google, to put you, or anybody else interested, straight on these particular issues. There have been enough occasions in discussions on PTH for me to refer very specifically to my professional involvement in a particular segment.
For commercial and professional reasons, including my past involvement in the industry, I keep daily track of events in defence procurement. Reading your last few posts, you seem to have a rooted tendency never to read anybody else’s posts but your own. Permit me to run you through your last mail – in the context that we speak, I would hesitate to describe it as your last post until I have more definite information – and contrast it with what I drew your attention to immediately before.
1. You mentioned the Logistics and Supplies Agreement. This has nothing to do with Indian defence procurement. It has everything to do with the recent incidents of detention of US military aircraft overflying Indian air-space without appropriate permissions.
One of the clauses of this agreement is to permit such overflight for a general fee. The US is in general buying a single license for all its aircraft to be considered in transit for maintenance purposes. In a broader context, it permits refuelling and servicing of US military aircraft at Indian commercial or military airports, hitherto not permitted without specific clearances from Ministry of Defence. General maintenance and upkeep for US aircraft is done at other points, including Bahrain and KSA. There is no need for this agreement except to permit overflight without a constant need to apply for permissions for each and every single flight.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. This fits in nowhere with the rest of the procurement effort; here India is selling, not buying.
2. The US is set to emerge as a large exporter of arms to India which plans to buy about US$30 billion worth of military equipment between 2007-2012. This figure means India is the developing world’s largest arms purchaser. Since the 1960s, and until recently, the Indian market was closed to US defense contractors, because of Washington’s displeasure with India’s friendly ties with the Soviet Union.
Yeah, right.
India was desperate to buy, but the US drew itself up to its full hyper-power height and refused. This, while its defence industry got itself into more and more trouble. Come off it.
The fact is already contained in the news report itself, since the 60s, the US – and Great Britain – have been considered unreliable suppliers and every sale – the Sea Harrier, the Jaguar, the Hawk recently – was made by Great Britain by pleading strenuously that it would insure India against the stoppage of spares due to US sanctions. Their case was not helped by the actual stoppage of spares for naval helicopters. This is all open knowledge. You neither need google nor livemint to learn it.
You may take it for granted that nothing major has moved yet, and will not move easily, as long as the US carries the taint of hostility towards India. As the next few points may indicate to you.
3. Jalashwa was not a priority for the Indian Navy and was sold at a price which is a joke, next to nothing. It is a huge, big floating tub, which is why the description as the second biggest ship in the fleet, but you may be sure that there isn’t exactly a race among ambitious captains to get command. They practically paid to get it carted away.
Since you are so well-acquainted with Google, you might try finding out what this vessel is, and where it fits into Indian military doctrine. You may be as surprised as the Indian Navy was.
It is not part of the $10 billion your earlier note mentioned.
4. Your latest mail: Another large transaction was the acquisition of six Hercules C-130J military transport aircraft worth $1 billion. It was India’s largest arms purchase from the US, so far.
My earlier mail: They sold some Hercules planes already, and had a wistful thought or two about the next two types in the line-up, which is emphatically not going to happen.
My reference is to the C141 Starliftere and the C5 Galaxy. We needed the C130, which is an effective intra-theatre transport aircraft, one step more flexible than our existing fleets of Antonovs and Tupolevs, which were the work-horses of the transport squadrons. We did not need the larger craft, irrespective of how hard the US pushed them – they pushed them very, very hard.
The six aircraft have been sold, the deal is over. Since the load carrying capacity of the C130, and its ability to operate as well as Russian aircraft from unprepared airstrips is very well known, its deployment and role can be guessed very easily. You may have noticed that the PAF is very relaxed about the deployment of these aircraft; they know very well where these are going and why.
Also not part of your $10 billion.
5. Your latest mail: Discussions are also ongoing between India and US manufacturer Lockheed Martin to buy eight P3-C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft at a cost of $650 million, coupled with 16 multi-mission MH-60R Sikorsky helicopters costing about $400 million. Raytheon is negotiating the sale of its Patriot PAC-3 anti-missile systems to India, too.
This is gormless. The P3-C Orion, used by the rest of the world as long-distance naval surveillance equipment, has been bought by the Pakistani Navy for anti-terrorism activity. You never know what Al Qaeda will be up to next.
There is 0 chance of India buying the P3C Orion. Perhaps your brilliant sources might have failed to close the ends of the number 3; try the P8I. Of course the difference is between a Fiat Millicento and a Ferrari 430 but so what?
Also in case you didn’t know, India operates the Sea King; it now additionally operates a Kamov variant as a naval surveillance platform. Why on earth would it use the Sikorsky? For what? There is no requirement, but there is a lot of talk, and, on the US side, a lot of belied hope. There was an RFI floated, but it went nowhere; the Sikorsky costs $30 million a pop, and the Sea King can be kept flying for years more. Nothing is happening here.
Finally, considering the performance of the Patriot, why would anyone in their right minds buy it?
Still not part of your $10 billion.
6. Your latest mail: Last week, India floated its biggest-ever military tender, for the purchase of 126 multi-role combat aircraft worth $10 billion. Lockheed-Martin and Boeing are lobbying hard to sell their F-16 and F/A-18 fighter planes to India.
My earlier mail: The US – two planes actually, the F16 and the F18 – are contenders for the MRCA stand-by purchase, in chase that is what you have in mind, but there are several others, including two Russian derivatives, in the race.
Right: so you really, really want to know.
This is the $10 billion deal, the only deal on which the US has any chance, and ironically, the one where it has the least chance largely because it is the US, with a history of betrayal and unreliability. The planes in contention are:
SAAB Gripen
F-16
MiG-35
F-18 Super Hornet
Dassault Rafale
EADS Typhoon
I will not comment on the chances of the different aircraft at this stage, when even flying trials are not complete: all aircraft have to be flown within the country, and there will be trials in their country of origin as well, for obvious reasons. The American planes have a chance, among other strong contenders, and that is all that can be said. So your wink-wink nod-nod hints that this is a done deal are grossly exaggerated at the moment.
This, then, is the only $10.0 bn deal going. You can see for yourself what the odds are; I am not proposing to put the reasons for and against each contending aircraft out on a general purpose forum and bore everyone to tears. So much for that.
PS: Even as we have been talking our heads off about these hypothetical goodies for the Americans, the MiG 29K deal (for carrier borne interceptors) for a little over $1.2 bn, and a multiple-frigate deal to be implemented in phases, of which $1.6 bn (2 modified Krivak frigates) was signed up in 2006, were initiated. This is not counting another dozen deals with the Russians that I can remember off-hand (who knows? perhaps with the help of Google, I might remember more).
While I cannot comment with such freedom on other aspects of your answers, with reference to defence procurement-related matters, based on the sample on display, my sincere advice is to stay away from matters about which apparently your information is drawn from Google and the Internet. As long as you do not opine about these things, your lack of knowledge will not become apparent.
To B. Civilian
I wrote: “Instant-delete is frightening totalitarianism.”
That was not about vajra.
Repetitions result when in a discussion one feels misread or unread or ignored or dismissed.
Everyone thinks: my argument is the best of all. And the “more best” it is the more it is repeated.
Truth is: my arguments are different from those of others, consequently also the conclusions at times. But to accuse me of hindutva etc. – that was/is a label campaign by the many against the one and only. And I rejected this label with verve and nerve.
In not a single post of mine did I call anyone by any label. It’s just not my habit. I reject this idea of labeling participants. Never did I use a filthy or obscene word against anyone.
Many (most) of my arguments remain unrefuted. I do not think of it as my triumph. It is reality that proves me right (or to be on right track) again and again.
Many (most) of my arguments remain unrefuted. I do not think of it as my triumph. It is reality that proves me right (or to be on right track) again and again.
The term for this is delusional.
Vajra,
Sounds like it is my turn to call you not only confused but blind and just say that most likely you have not read what I had posted on this thread and decided to jump in with irrelevant stats what not. What were you smoking?
Here is my first post on this $10 billion deal.
hoss
January 16, 2010 at 8:48 pm
“Plus India plans to buy almost $10 billion military hardware from the US. The Indian dependence on the US is growing and that means India would have to follow the US lead in the international affairs. This is how the international relations work.”
Where does it say it is a done deal?
You would have saved yourself the whole two hours that you spent on you simply ridiculous post not to mention the few minutes I spent on reading the frivolousness, if you had paid attention to what I wrote initially.
I provided some quick references to the news items that refer to the proposed deal.
I am not a bean counter to look at every piece of hardware that US plans to sell or India plans buy from the US in future. I look at the political impact of burgeoning Indian dependence on the US.
I am not really impressed with the stuff you posted. I wished you had posted the references…obviously the India defense department did not send you their wish list.
Please get in to a habit of reading first before commenting on issues. Not doing that would just make you look silly as it does now.
PS. Just to rub it in: you were responding to the news items as they appeared in some paper and I perhaps wrote just a few lines in there. You did not pay attention to the quotation marks in my previous posts. Silly goose!
Back to you.
“Reading your last few posts, you seem to have a rooted tendency never to read anybody else’s posts but your own.”
Updike:
Please go away. Your pop up alter egos are bad for the nerves.
Vajra:
Thanks for all that detail. Without googling one can also recall the 2.5 billion dollar aircraft carrier and the lease of the latest Akula class nuclear submarine. American arms are peripheral to India’s military build up. Our Pakistani friends should realize that India does not consider western arms suppliers reliable, and it is unlikely to get caught into becoming a dependency of the US, let alone a proxy.
Achutha:
India was in danger of becoming a Soviet puppet but never became one, but that was not because of the arms deals. These began as you would know only in 1965 when the first Mig 21s began to arrive. Followed in quick succession by Sukhoi 7s and then medium artillery such as the 105mm and 130mm guns, shilkas and multi barrel rocket launchers and much else.
But Nehru had already exposed himself over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. Moscow warmed towards India at the end of the sixties so much as to offer arrive at a treaty relationship in ’71, but that was because of its recent war with China over the Amur river boundary. China and the US were then almost in alliance over defending Pakistan should India dare to act militarily over East Pakistan.
India had almost fallen into the Soviet lap in the fifties and early sixties but that was because the western powers and Taiwan regularly tried to get the Security Council to pass resolutions over Kashmir which the Soviet Union just as regularly vetoed. India was not a proxy of course then but it did hide behind the back of big brother at the UN. Recall Bulganin and Krushchev’s visit to Kashmir in 1955.
India did behave weak kneed over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Its current developmental activity is not only to build a reservoir of goodwill but also to make the Afghans forget that it failed them in 1978/79. But India was never a proxy, and rumours of proxy ship for the Americans now are greatly exaggerated.
Nehru ofcourse never ceased to lecture the Americans from his lofty moral perch all through the fifties, and ignored them when invading Goa. It was only the Chinese invasion in 62 that put an end to his moralizing. Indira Gandhi never expressed the slightest gratitude to the Americans for all that food aid without which governance would have collapsed.
The Iranians have a right to feel betrayed. India used Iran to counter Pakistan at various UN forums but were not available when they were needed in turn. Over the gas pipeline it is hard to say whether it was the price of gas (which collapsed recently) that Iran wanted to re-negotiate, or the nuclear lollipop that the US held out. Its recent vote against Iran over the latter’s nuclear ambitions is a more complex question that would take us far afield from the present discussion.