IAS OUR DREAM

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Religion threatens relations between Nepal and India September 5, 2009

Filed under: current affairs,International Relation — swapsushias @ 5:28 am
<img title="Maoist activists wave black flags demanding people’s supremacy, during the Indra Jatra festival in Basantapur Durbar Square, Kathmandu, yesterday " src="http://www.gulf-times.com/mritems/images/2009/9/3/2_312624_1_248.jpg" alt="Maoist activists wave black flags demanding people’s supremacy, during the Indra Jatra festival in Basantapur Durbar Square, Kathmandu, yesterday ” height=”178″ width=”292″>

Maoist activists wave black flags demanding people’s supremacy, during the Indra Jatra festival in Basantapur Durbar Square, Kathmandu, yesterday

The celebration of Indra Jatra – the festival of the rain god – was marred in Nepal yesterday as violence erupted in the capital over the new government’s decision to appoint Indian priests at the Hindu temple of Pashupatinath.

“Go back to India, Indian priests” and “Down with the government” screamed protesters who blocked the road leading to the 5th century shrine in the capital, burnt tyres on the road and forced shops to shut down. Tension simmered in the area with the committee spearheading the protests giving the communist-led government of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal till the evening to revoke the decision to appoint two new priests from India or face greater disruption. The violence came as a sequel to the effort by the earlier Maoist government to break with the 300-year-old tradition of appointing only priests from India to conduct the ceremonial worship at the temple.

The chief priest, Mahabaleshwar Bhatt, and two others resigned under Maoist pressure and the then government of Maoist premier Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda last year appointed Nepali priests for the first time in the history of the temple. However, the appointments were opposed by the orthodox worshippers, who moved court to stop the change. The dispute is still in court with the judges having asked the government not to make any new changes till it is resolved. After the Prachanda government fell in May, the new coalition government decided to continue with the old tradition.

It recently shortlisted two new priests from India’s Karnataka state, Girish Bhatt and Raghavendra Bhatt. At least five religious organisations of Nepal, led by the Maoists, are opposing the new appointments. They say that the government has flouted the Supreme Court direction not to make any changes till the case is resolved.

They also say that with Nepal having undergone a sea change, new priests should be appointed on the basis of free competition and qualifications from Nepal instead of India.

The socio-religious dispute has been threatening to develop into an India-Nepal standoff. Last year, when the row erupted, India’s political parties had condemned the interference and asked the government not to hurt the sentiments of Hindus worldwide and keep politics out of religion.

 

Pakistan policy: Sharm-el-Sheikh and after September 4, 2009

It has been clear for some years now that India is unable to fully comprehend or address the complexities of a changing Pakistan. Not surprisingly, New Delhi’s policies have floundered, if not failed. Strident debates in the Indian media — frightening in their Manichaean simplicity — reflect a lack of appreciation of the intricacies of the Gordian knot of bilateral relations.

Unlike much of the establishment, however, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — by pinning Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh and then by warning the Chief Ministers of Indian states of the dangers of a terrorist attack from Pakistan-based groups — may have addressed part of the core problem: there are multiple Pakistans all of which demand Indian attention. Robust if differentiated, focussed but flexible, multitrack responses must now define India’s policy towards Pakistan’s fragile and fragmented political and social structure.

Not only the deep cleavages within Pakistan’s society but also — surprisingly — the overwhelming popular desire now for better relations with India are revealed in two recent surveys of public opinion in that country, conducted by Gallup Pakistan and by the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project which included 24 countries (including Pakistan) and the Palestinian territories. The findings should also serve as a warning to New Delhi of the dangers of “outsourcing” its Pakistan policy to Washington.

Three findings from both surveys stand out. First, as expected, is the high level of anti-Americanism among the Pakistanis. In the Pew survey, 68 per cent of the respondents have expressed a negative opinion of the U.S. Only 16 per cent have a positive view, and 64 per cent consider the U.S. more an enemy than a friend. American President Barack Obama receives the lowest ratings in Pakistan among all 25 nations surveyed as part of the Pew project. The Gallup Poll too reveals the all pervasive nature of Pakistani sentiment against the U.S. Fifty-nine per cent consider the U.S. the greatest threat to the country. Not surprisingly, American policy in Afghanistan receives very little support.

Secondly, both surveys suggest that there is a strong public desire for better relations with India even among those sections which consider their eastern neighbour a major threat. The Gallup Survey suggests that only 18 per cent consider India the greatest threat, and interestingly the figure is the highest among those likely to vote for either the MQM or the ANP and lowest among Sindhi speakers. Women are more likely to be anti-American than anti-India. According to the Pew survey, 69 per cent of the respondents do consider India a major threat, but two-thirds believe it is important for relations between Islamabad and New Delhi to improve. Over a third of those polled believe that having good relations with India is very important. Apprehensions about India are the highest in Punjab, where 70 per cent cite India as the greatest threat to the country, while a majority in Sindh and the NWFP consider the Taliban a bigger threat.

Finally, it seems that there is a process of deep churning within Pakistan’s multiple “societies,” which seems to translate, at the moment, into almost schizophrenic responses on key issues of identity. This is most clearly reflected in attitudes towards the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “severe laws” associated with these groups.

instance, in the Pew survey, there is little support for the Taliban and the al-Qaeda. Fifty-seven per cent consider the Taliban and 41 per cent consider the al-Qaeda a serious threat to the country. Forty one per cent in the Gallup poll support military action against the Taliban. And yet there is also considerable support for the harsh punishments imposed by these extremist groups. Seventy-eight per cent favour death for those who leave Islam; 80 per cent support whipping and cutting hands for theft and robbery; and 83 per cent favour stoning adulterers. And yet, 87 per cent of Pakistanis believe that it is equally important for boys and girls to be educated, in contrast to the Taliban’s thinking.

The poll finds that support for suicide bombing remains very low. In terms of credibility of institutions, the army, the media and the judiciary receive high approval while the Inter-Services Intelligence, the police and the national government get much less support.

These findings need to be studied carefully but if they are indeed reflective of real trends, they suggest what has always been intuitively obvious: India’s Pakistan policy has not succeeded because, while remaining a prisoner of past dogmas, it has been unable to respond to the multiple political and social forces in Pakistan that need to be understood and addressed.

The strategic community in India has traditionally been overwhelmingly in support of a policy of aggressively countering Pakistan. These are the Subedars. Only a minority, the Saudagars, has wanted to ignore and benignly neglect Islamabad or integrate it economically. A microscopic few, however, want New Delhi to be proactive in promoting peace, even to the extent of making unilateral concessions. These are the Sufis.

But these strands cannot afford today to remain in opposition to one another. The need of the hour is for the Subedars, the Saudagars and the Sufis to come together and shape a new Pakistan policy. At a time when it has become risky to invoke Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it is still important to recall his original design for the state: Muslim, Moderate and Modern. It is this Pakistan that an Indian strategy must systematically work towards constructing. In the present scenario, Indian policy must have at least the following strands.

First, India needs to build strong defensive and offensive capabilities to deter “asymmetric” attacks by non-state actors which may have the backing of elements of the Pakistani establishment. Nuclear weapons, at the end of the day, will only deter nuclear weapons and, at best, a full-scale conventional war. Doctrines like Cold Start will, however, remain in cold storage until they are able to explicitly demonstrate that diplomatic, political and military benefits outweigh the costs.

Secondly, India must reach out and strengthen all those who have a stake in better India-Pakistan relations and an interest in regional stability through unilateral gestures that do not demand reciprocity. These would include specific initiatives for civil society actors, as well as many others within the business and political community. For instance, New Delhi should consider constructing a preferential trading regime that offers Pakistan’s handicrafts and other local products almost unfettered access to the Indian market. Such a gesture, with some short-term costs, could have far-reaching long-term benefits for India and the region. Similarly, New Delhi could begin by offering a thousand scholarships to young men and women in Pakistan willing to study the humanities or social sciences in India at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Thirdly, India must systematically seek to weaken, delegitimise and isolate those who are enemies of a moderate Pakistan and, by implication, of a stable subcontinent. This can be done unilaterally or in conjunction with allies. It is unfortunate that sub-continental Islam, built on an ethos of multiculturalism and tolerance, has not been projected with the robustness needed in these difficult times. This “soft power” of South Asian Sufi Islam remains the best weapon against extremism.

Fourthly, Indian policies must be carefully distanced from the present American role in Pakistan or the larger U.S. Af-Pak policy. In the Pew survey, more Pakistanis expressed a willingness to trust Osama bin Laden rather than Mr. Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. Ultimately, we need to understand that India-Pakistan relationship, over the last 62 years, has been about almost everything that matters: history, memory, prejudice, identity, religion, sovereignty, ideology, insecurity, betrayal and much, much more. Ironically, a troubled Pakistan, confused about its identity and its place in the world, may offer a real chance to move beyond conflict and towards real reconciliation. It is an opportunity to finally cut the Gordian knot; a chance India cannot afford to miss.

 

GDP India vs. GDP China September 2, 2009

Filed under: INTERNATIONAL,International Relation — swapsushias @ 1:55 pm



GDP India vs. GDP China

The growth rate in GDP India vs. GDP China has increased outstandingly in the recent period due to several factors leading to an economic upsurge in both the countries. China and India jointly account for 2.4 billion people, which is roughly 40 percent of the total population of the world. It has been assumed that China is likely to excel Japan in terms of population by the year 2016. By the end of the year 2045, China is expected to surpass United States in the population strength also. According to a survey report on the growth rate of China and India GDP, it has been stated that the institutional investors have made a notable contribution in the country’s economy, which led to the hike in the GDP of both the countries.

India GDP and China GDP are likely to grow in their own ways. To be precise, in 25 years from the current period it has been assumed that China will have a more superior economy as it already leads the total output in the world. On the other hand, soon in the coming years India will have superior investor returns than China. This is because of the augmented institutional development in India which is higher and more efficient than that of China. Considering the expected conflicts in China’s economic and political systems, it can be inferred that a wide diversification of the investors is an essential factor that is required for a sustainable growth in the country’s GDP.

It has been reported by a survey done on GDP India vs. GDP China that India’s GDP (PPP) is four trillion whereas China’s GDP (PPP) is ten trillion. As per the post-war history of economics, China’s economy has undergone a drastic change with seven percent increase in its GDP. The growth in GDP of China has resulted from the rapid rise in the manufacturing of high-tech goods in the country under the large-scale high-tech manufacturing firms like Lenovo, Baidu.com and Huawei Technologies. The infrastructural development in China has also been quite higher than that of India, which has added to the growth of China GDP. In general, China spends much more in its infrastructural facilities than India.

Former World Bank Chief James Wolfensohn declared in one of his speeches that soon GDP India and GDP China will witness an overwhelming growth that will transcend the G7 countries, that includes United States of America, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and United Kingdom. It is assumed that by the year 2050, both India GDP and China GDP will witness a gargantuan growth. The current GDP of China is USD two trillion which is predicted to reach USD 48.6 trillion by 2050. On the other hand, India’s current GDP is USD one trillion, which will become USD 27 trillion by that time.

 

All about 123 August 26, 2009

Filed under: gk,INTERNATIONAL,International Relation — swapsushias @ 11:01 am

123 will take us to infinity, Hyde to zero
123 is a bilateral agreement between India and the US. It aims to give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment, overturning a three-decade ban imposed after, New Delhi, which has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treat, conducted a nuclear test in 1974. [Under the treaty, the nuclear weapon states party to the agreement pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons or any other nuclear explosive devices (such as possible peaceful nuclear explosives for large-scale excavations) to any recipient or to “assist, encourage, or induce” any nonnuclear weapon state to manufacture nuclear weapons or any other nuclear explosive devices. The nuclear weapon states are not required by the treaty to give up nuclear weapons
The civil nuclear deal will remain in force for a 40-year period and can be extended by an additional 10 years at a time.
The US will help India secure uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel as well as maintain a strategic fuel reserve for its safeguarded nuclear reactors.

In return, India will put its agreed civilian nuclear reactors in perpetuity under (possibility of US inspections of Indian nuclear facilities given in article 10.4 of the 123 text, though not explicitly, “If the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible, the supplier and the recipient should consult and agree on appropriate verification measures, but this should be considered a remote incident)

If India does a nuclear test, the agreement will be terminated only after one year’s written notice by the US. The US will take into account whether “circumstances that may lead to termination” resulted from “changed security environment” or “a response to similar actions by other actions” in deciding the termination of the agreement. (In other words, if Pakistan or China conducted nuclear test, the US would take that into account if India responded.) (Also India can terminate the agreement giving one year’s notice)

On termination, the US will have the right to seek return of all equipment and nuclear material transferred under this agreement.

Before exercising the right of return, the US will compensate India by providing an alternative or the money spent by India. (Like, the two countries would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries such as Russia, France and Britain to restore supplies to India) (Article 14.5 of the text clearly states protections built by India into the agreement)

The US will support India’s case for high dual-use technology and nuclear fuel with the NSG.

The two countries had wanted to sew the agreement because India had wanted the US to allow it to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, assure permanent fuel supplies and not penalise India by ending nuclear trade if it conducts a nuclear test. The text shows that the first two demands had largely been met, while there was no direct mention of the consequences of another Indian test. (this problem can be very tactfully handled, for commencing nuclear trade India needs to get an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group which does not trade with a non-NPT state, the exemption will be facilitated by the US influence in the group and after that New Delhi could do an end-run around America to buy power reactors from Russia and France)

India will set up a dedicated facility under IAEA safeguards for reprocessing

Likely benefits for both the sides:

For the US – A US chamber of commerce anticipates $100 billion worth of opportunity from the re-opening of India’s nuclear sector to foreign companies and countries

For India

  1. global civilian nuclear cooperation
  2. right to retain nuclear weapons while being outside the Non- Proliferation Treaty (Article 2 of the text allows advance nuclear R&D and the setting up of a reserve stockpile of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply during the lifetime of the reactors (thus India has got a humorous but wise option too, that of stockpiling the fuel and then ditching America by terminating the agreement and starting nuclear commerce with other countries).
  3. Access to high and dual-use technology even when India is not a member of the NSG and the Missile Technology Control Regime(MTCR)
  4. India will be the only country, outside the NT, in the world to have both nuclear weapons as well as benefits of trade as available to a nuclear weapons state
  5. While outside the NPT, India will be allowed to have nuclear weapons
  6. Partnership with the US supports India’s rising stature in the world
  7. Without being a signatory to the NSG and MTCR, India can trade in restrictive technology with members of these elite clubs
  8. India gets resources to meet its declared target of 20, 000 MW of nuclear power by 2020.

Concerns about 123:

  1. Uncertainty over the eventual shape of national reprocessing facilities under IAEA safeguards (and the present deadlock in the higher echelons of the coalition govt is all about this, the consensus reached at the last November’s meeting of the coordination committee, set up for resolving the issues related to the deal within the govt machinery, had agreed to wait upon the results of the discussions with the IAEA and then after going through the draft agreement will proceed to the next step. But the govt is not revealing the details of the agreement citing security and other reasons)
  2. Transfer of nuclear fuel and components by the US will be governed by US laws and not by 123. ( and the US congress has passed the notorious HYDE act in December,2006 which has negated all the negotiations reached between the two countries)
  3. the likelihood of US interference in India’s national security/foreign policy issues ( the Hyde Act desires that India aligns its national security and foreign policies with that of the US)

Steps towards civilian nuclear cooperation:

  1. signing of 123 agreement , which has already been done in august 2007
  2. safeguard agreement and India-specific additional protocol with the IAEA
  3. acceptance of India by the nsg as a country possessing advanced nuclear technology
  4. final up/down (approval) vote by the US Congress
  5. This final step is all the more difficult as the Hyde act has specified stiff conditions which any NSG rule-0change must mirror – from a permanent test ban and tightly regulated uranium access to a continued prohibition on all civil nuclear fuel-cycle technologies and the right to demand the return of transferred items and materials

CONCLUSION:

123 agreement is too tempting and its advantages are beyond doubt true and far reaching. But if the Hyde Act has its shadow on it, it appears dwarfed and darkened. A 123 Agreement without a Hyde Act is what is feasible and desirable for our country otherwise the future is rather bleak which is rightly the concern of the Left parties of the UPA coalition. But a way is to be found out for amicable nuke deal. All the Best India!

 

भारत-नेपाल नई संधि पर सहमत August 22, 2009

Filed under: IN HINDI,INTERNATIONAL,International Relation — swapsushias @ 12:36 pm
<img src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2009/08/22/090822105311_manmohan_nepal_226.jpg" alt="मनमोहन-माधव नेपाल” width=”226″ height=”170″>

भारत और नेपाल दोनों देशों के बीच अवैध व्यापार पर रोक लगाने पर सहमत हो गए हैं.

इस पर दोनों देशों के बीच समझौता भी होगा जिस पर बाद में हस्ताक्षर किए जाएंगे. इसके तहत ख़ास तौर पर तीसरे देश के रास्ते अवैध तरीके से होने वाले व्यापार को रोकने की कोशिश की जाएगी.

दोनों देश द्विपक्षीय व्यापार संधि पर भी हस्ताक्षर करेंगे जिस पर पिछले दो वर्षों से बातचीत चल रही है. इसक मकसद द्विपक्षीय कारोबार का दायरा बढ़ाना है.

भारत नेपाल में निर्मित वस्तुओं को भारतीय बाज़ार में शुल्क मुक्त प्रवेश देने पर राजी हो गया है.

दोनों देशों के बीच बनी सहमति के दस्तावेज़ पर भारत की ओर से वाणिज्य सचिव राहुल खुल्लर और नेपाल के वाणिज्य सचिव पुरुषोत्तम ओझा ने दस्तख़त किए.

इस मौके पर भारतीय विदेश मंत्री एसएम कृष्णा और नेपाल के वाणिज्य मंत्री राजेंद्र महतो उपस्थित थे.

नए समझौते से 1991 में हुआ समझौता अप्रभावी हो जाएगा.

साझा बयान

इस बीच भारतीय विदेश मंत्रालय ने साझा प्रेस बयान जारी किया है जिसमें दोनों देशों ने आपसी रिश्तों को और प्रगाढ़ बनाने की प्रतिबद्धता जताई है.

इस बात पर सहमति बनी है कि सुरक्षा पर द्विपक्षीय सलाहकार समूह और दोनों देशों के गृह सचिव दो महीने के भीतर बैठक करेंगे. इसमें सीमा पर अपराध समेत सुरक्षा के सभी मुद्दों पर चर्चा होगी.

नेपाल के प्रधानमंत्री माधव कुमार नेपाल का छह दिवसीय भारत दौरा शनिवार को ख़त्म हो रहा है.

साझा बयान के मुताबिक नेपाल ने वादा किया है कि वह अपनी ज़मीन का इस्तेमाल भारत के ख़िलाफ़ नहीं होने देगा और भारत ने भी ऐसा ही आश्वासन पड़ोसी देश को दिया है.

इसमें कहा गया है, “इस बात पर सहमति बनी है कि सुरक्षा पर द्विपक्षीय सलाहकार समूह और दोनों देशों के गृह सचिव दो महीने के भीतर बैठक करेंगे. इसमें सीमा पर अपराध समेत सुरक्षा के सभी मुद्दों पर चर्चा होगी.”

दोनों देशों के प्रधानमंत्री 1950 की मैत्री संधि की समीक्षा करने पर सहमत हो गए हैं.

 

India – US Nuke agreement – update August 19, 2009


Visiting U.S. Secretary of State will be the unveiling of a new strategic dialogue architecture and the signing of an agreement to facilitate the launch of U.S. satellites and satellites with U.S. components on Indian launch vehicles.

The new dialogue architecture is intended to take Indo-U.S. relations to a higher level, 3.0 — to use Ms. Clinton’s phrase — and will cover areas like nonproliferation, security, education, health and development.

The new Technology Safeguards Agreement (TSA) to be signed will cover launches involving satellites owned by U.S. government or academic institutions or by third country space agencies and universities which have U.S. equipment on board. Since the components and satellites will have to be integrated with ISRO’s launch vehicles, the TSA will provide for monitoring by the U.S. side to ensure against diversion or misuse of equipment.

The agreement to be signed will be an umbrella one — similar to the TSA that China and the U.S. signed — with individual licensing by the State Department likely dispensed with, but India will not yet be able to enter the lucrative market for the launch of U.S. commercial satellites or third country commercial satellites with U.S. components till a separate Commercial Space Launch Agreement (CSLA) is signed.

A second agreement will also be signed on a framework for “robust result-oriented cooperation” in science and technology for “collaborative research and its commercialisation.”This agreement will build on the October 2005 Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement.

 

INDIA AND THE NEPAL PEACE PROCESS August 19, 2009

Madhav kumar nepal is making his first visit to india as the p.m of nepali republic.
After the resignation of maoist lader Prachanda the burden of being the prime minster fell on him. May 2010 is the deadline for the new constitution of nepal to be written.India doubts it with the maoists in opposition.
NEW CONSTITUTION
1. Nepal’s interim statute provides for an additional six months to finalise the new constitution
in the event of a national emergency.
2.If the elections are delayed distrust will increase between the maoists and its political rivals (the Nepali Congress & Unified Marxists-Leninists), imperilling the peace process for which Maoist insurgents had given up their armed struggle (in exchange for integration into a democratised national army).
3.NC and UML bosses would be quite happy to see the writing of the constitution delayed and elections postponed.
4.A section in india also believes that this is good as it would cause a split in he maoists.
COMBATANTS WAITING FOR INTEGRATION
1.Nearly 20,000 combatants from peoples’ liberation army are waiting for integration into nepal’s army and paramillitary forces.
2.Discourse on integration has become more opaque since when the prachanda government made the sacking of General Rookmangad Katawal (an issue on which it was prepared to quit).
CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
1.Delaying or preventing integration keeps Maoist cadres out of the Nepal army but it also prolongs the existence of the PLA as a standalone force.
India needs to convince the nepal government that he limited number of PLA soldiers cannot alter the professional nature of the army.
2.No political party can have a serious objection to enshrining of the principle of civilian supremacy in the interim constitution and this will push the maoists back on board.
TRUST DEFICIT BETWEEN MAOISTS AND INDIA
1.There is a huge trust deficit between the Nepali Maoists and the Indian government.The maoist governmnt squandered most of the goodwill it has build on in new delhi and mistakes were also made from the indian side.
2.The unravelling of the Nepal peace process will lead to the fragmentation of Nepal’s polity in ways that will be harmful to India’s interests.
3. So New Delhi should stop sending negative or mixed signals on integration.
 

INDO-CHINA RIVALRY August 19, 2009

The India-China Rivalry Print E-mail
Tag it:
Delicious
Furl it!
Mister.Wong
NewsVine
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Technorati
Digg
Written by John Elliott
Friday, 14 August 2009
ImageThe struggle for primacy in the Indian Ocean
From John Elliott’s blog, Riding the Elephant – http://ridingtheelephant.wordpress.com/, which appears elsewhere on Asia Sentinel.

It’s probably the tip of the iceberg of China’s ambitions to thwart India’s emergence as a significant economic and maybe diplomatic and military power. I’m referring to what might appear to some to be a crazy article on a Chinese strategic issues website, which claims that China could “dismember the so-called ‘Indian Union’ with one little move”.

The writer has argued that India’s national unity is weak and that China could exploit this by supporting separatist forces, such as those active in India’s north-east state of Assam, and split the country into 20 or 30 sovereign states.

“There cannot be two suns in the sky. China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously,” said the article. That almost certainly reflects Beijing thinking, even though the founder of the website has claimed the anonymous writer has no known government links.

The article was posted last Saturday and was publicized in India yesterday, prompting the Indian foreign ministry to say it appeared to be “an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions”. But what else could India say – especially since the article coincided with apparently cordial talks between the two countries on their border that has been disputed since China defeated India in a brief 1962 Himalayan war.

It is not unusual for China to fly such extreme kites. Philip Bowring of the Hong Kong-based Asia Sentinel website pointed out that the arrest last week of two Rio Tinto executives in Beijing for alleged theft and corruption followed an internet article written by an official of China’s National Administration for the Protection of State Secrets, which accused Rio of commercial “spying” that had cost the nation $100 billion in higher iron ore prices – an accusation says Bowring that “does not stand up to the most casual scrutiny of trade data”. Bowring then points out that “although the article is no longer on the website, its claims have not been corrected and its imprint on Chinese minds will not disappear.”

The imprint of the India internet article will also not disappear because, whatever the two countries may say officially, it sums up what has been happening for years.

As James Lamont and Amy Kazmin explained a month ago in an excellent FT round-up of the two countries’ tortuous relations, China has been encircling India by developing influence and outposts in Pakistan, Nepal, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka, and wants to usurp India’s major role in controlling the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

Pakistan, which China has armed and helped become a nuclear power, has been destabilizing India first in Punjab (in the 1980s) and then in Kashmir. China has also for years been encouraging separatist forces in India’s north-eastern states, including Assam, and will no doubt use its growing clout in Myanmar – and Bangladesh – to increase those activities. In the future it could perhaps use its growing influence in Sri Lanka – where it is developing a naval base and advised the government in the recent defeat of the Tamil Tiger separatists – to cause unrest among linked Tamil communities in southern India.

It has also strengthened its border claims –

for example by opposing a US$3 billion Asian Development Bank aid project in Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian border state that China claims as “south Tibet”. And it tried to block international approval of the recent India-US nuclear deal with the US.

This is of course a dangerous game and sometimes India has to respond – recently for example by moving fighter jets to the China border.

I have heard a former senior Indian bureaucrat argue privately that China’s basic – and permanent – aim is to force India to focus on domestic issues and thus thwart it becoming a future international rival.

China, according to this view – which is surely correct – is determined to be the world’s sole superpower after America, and does not want that status to be upset by a strong and democratic India backed by the US and Europe. Its tactics have become more insistent in the past two years as it has become irritated by India’s growing links with the US, culminating in the nuclear deal.

Everything that China does in relation to India therefore has to be seen through that prism. India will not fragment into 20 or 30 pieces – it is far too unified for that – but there is no prospect of permanent peace and co-operation between the two countries because, as the internet writer has said, “there cannot be two suns in the sky.”

 

35 POINTS ON US-India Relationship August 15, 2009

Filed under: ESSAY,INTERNATIONAL,International Relation,SHORT NOTES — swapsushias @ 2:05 pm

पॉइंट्स अत शोर्ट

  1. Swami Vivekananda who introduced Yoga and Vedanta to America.
  2. he introduced Eastern thought at the World’s Parliament of Religions.
  3. Despite being one of the pioneers and founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement, India developed a closer relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
  4. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, India began to review its foreign policy in a unipolar world
  5. closer ties with the European Union and the United States.
  6. Clinton and Bush administration, relations between India and the United States blossomed
  7. over common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism
  8. slight downturn in India-U.S. relations following the election of Barack Obama as the President of the United States in 2009.
  9. Obama administration‘s desire to increase relations with China
  10. After Indian independence until the end of the cold war, the relationship between the two nations has often been thorny.
  11. Barack Obama’s protectionist views on dealing with the economic crisis.
  12. Dwight Eisenhower was the first U.S. President to visit India in 1959.
  13. John F. Kennedy’s period as President, he saw India as a strategic partner against the rise of communist China.
  14. From 1961 to 1963 there was a promise to help set up a large steel mill in Bokaro that was withdrawn by the U.S.
  15. 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani wars did not help their relations.
  16. Atal Bihari Vajpayee became Indian Prime Minister, he authorized a nuclear weapons test in Pokhran, which got the immediate attention of the US.
  17. In March 2000, President Bill Clinton visited India
  18. He had bilateral and economic discussions with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
  19. During the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the , President George W. Bush chose India as the country to control and police the Indian Ocean sea-lanes from the Suez to Singapore.
  20. The tsunami that occurred in December 2004 saw the U.S. and Indian navies to work together
  21. An Open Skies Agreement was made in April 2005
  22. Air India purchased 68 U.S. Boeing aircraft, which cost $8 billion.
  23. After Hurricane Katrina, India donated $5 million to the American Red Cross and sent 2 plane loads
  24. U.S. base in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia
  25. Major items exported by India to the U.S. include Information Technology Services, textiles, machinery, ITeS, gems and diamonds, chemicals, iron and steel products, coffee, tea, and other edible food products.
  26. Major American items imported by India include aircraft, fertilizers, computer hardware, scrap metal and medical equipment.
  27. In July 2005, President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh created a new program called the Trade Policy Forum
  28. interaction of companies from both countries regarding new policies related to Indian media and broadcasting.
  29. The Foreign Policy magazine reported that even though Foreign Policy Staff of the previous administration had recommended India as a “key stop”
  30. India’s National Security Adviser, M.K. Narayanan, criticized the Obama administration for linking the Kashmir dispute to the instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan
  31. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a close aide of India’s main opposition party the BJP, said that if the United States continues with its anti-outsourcing policies, then India will “have to take steps to hurt American companies in India.
  32. Obama administration cleared the US$2.1 billion sale of eight P-8 Poseidons to India
  33. strengthening of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and has pressurized India to sign the agreement.
  34. Shyam Saran, “warned” the United States that India would continue to oppose any such treaty as it was “discriminatory”.
  35. U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen encouraged stronger military ties between India and the United States
 

India and the Baloch insurgency August 15, 2009

Filed under: International Relation — swapsushias @ 8:05 am

Question of provincial rights: Islamabad cannot get away with blaming India for the unrest in Balochistan.

Why is Manmohan Singh under fire in India? Many Indians, including the Opposition, are not happy about the reference to Balochistan in the joint statement released at Sharm-El-Shaikh, Egypt, after the meeting between Dr. Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned summit. Some feel Dr. Singh stabbed them in the back by accepting the claim that India interferes in Balochistan. There are reports that Mr. Gilani pressured Dr. Si ngh at Sharm-El-Shaikh by handing over a dossier of evidence alleging Indian involvement in cross-border terrorism in Balochistan and that was how the Prime Minister was forced to accept the reference to Balochistan. I was present at Sharm-El-Shaikh. Many Indian journalists were shocked on reading the joint statement. They asked me why Balochistan was mentioned in the statement. In fact, many of them, like many common Indians, were not aware of what was going on in Balochistan. Within a few hours, I started receiving calls from many Indian television channels asking what evidence Pakistan showed Dr. Singh of the alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan.

While Mr. Gilani did mention Balochistan to Dr. Singh, he never handed over any dossier. The situation in the province came in for detailed discussion during the first meeting of the Foreign Secretaries at Sharm-El-Shaikh in the evening of July 14, two days before the meeting of Dr. Singh and Mr. Gilani. Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told his Indian counterpart, Shiv Shankar Menon, that India must delink the composite dialogue process from action on terrorism, otherwise Pakistan would be forced to produce before the international media at least “three Indian Ajmal Kasabs” who were directly or indirectly part of the terrorist activities in Balochistan. He added that Pakistan would easily establish that the Indian Consulate in the Afghan city of Kandahar was actually a control room of terrorist activities organised by the separatist Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). (ये तो सरासर झूठ है)The three Indian nationals were arrested in Pakistan in the last few weeks. According to Pakistani officials, they have undeniable evidence of the links of these Indians with Baloch militants.

Mr. Bashir told Mr. Menon that Pakistan and India could not afford a blame game. If Pakistan were to come out with evidence of India’s involvement in the attack on Chinese engineers in the Gwadar port city, not only would India’s credibility be damaged but also more anti-India feelings would spread in Pakistan. The extremist forces would be the ultimate beneficiaries, Mr. Bashir said.

One must understand why the Pakistani authorities are very careful in exposing the alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan. First, this new blame game will only help the extremist forces who successfully organised the attacks in Mumbai on November 26, 2008 to derail the India-Pakistan peace process. Secondly, it will harm Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. The U.S. does not want tensions between Islamabad and Kabul at this stage because the NATO forces are trying their best to conduct a presidential election in Afghanistan in a few weeks. Thirdly, the PPP-led coalition government is aware that Balochistan is not a serious dispute like Jammu and Kashmir; it is a problem of provincial rights. Instead of internationalising the issue, therefore, Islamabad should address the problem realistically. It cannot get away by blaming India alone for the unrest in the province. It has engaged many Baloch militants in talks behind-the scenes. Good news is expected soon.

Pakistan is making noises about the alleged Indian involvement in the Baloch insurgency in a careful, calculated and “limited manner.” The U.S. magazine, Foreign Affairs (March 2009) published the report of a roundtable discussion on the causes of instability in Pakistan. Christine Fair of RAND Corporation said, “having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan.”(ये क्या)

Where is Zahedan? It is the capital of the Irani province Sistan-o-Balochistan bordering Pakistan. More than two million Balochis live on the Iranian side of Balochistan. Iran is building a big port of Chabahar in the same area with active help from India. Top Iranian leaders have repeatedly alleged that the Central Intelligence Agency is supporting the Iranian Balochis to destabilise the Islamic Republic. American journalist Seymour Hersh admitted in July 2008 that the Bush administration gave millions of dollars to the separatist Iranian group, Jandallah, which is responsible for violence in the Iranian part of Balochistan.

If Pakistan plays the India card in Balochistan, many anti-U.S. forces in Pakistan will demand to know why it is silent on the CIA’s role in Balochistan.

Keeping in view the sensitivity of the problem, it is difficult for India to openly support the Baloch insurgency because it may harm its relations with Iran. If Indians come out openly in support of the BLA,

anti-Indian elements in Pakistan will quickly bracket New Delhi with the alleged great game of the U.S. against Iran.(क्या STRATEGY HAI)

The Balochis are Kurds of South Asia. The Kurd population is distributed in Iran, Turkey and Iraq, while the Balochis are spread over Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Separatist groups in Pakistan and Iran want the Baloch areas unified. This is not acceptable to both countries. Balochistan has huge quantities of natural gas and unexplored oil reserves and is the largest Pakistani province in terms of area, covering almost 48 per cent of the country. But it accounts for only five per cent of the total population. A tribal society, it is the most underdeveloped province.

The first military operation in Balochistan was launched by General Ayub Khan in the late 1950s. The second was launched in 1974 when Iraq tried to destabilise Iranian Balochistan with the help of pro-Soviet Afghan ruler Sardar Daoud in collaboration with some Pakistani Baloch leaders. Daoud tried to exploit the slogan of independent Balochistan, on the one hand, and Pashtunistan, on the other. Afghanistan’s interference in Pakistan forced Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to use Ahmad Shah Massoud and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar against the Kabul regime. The two Afghan rebels became guests of the Pakistani security forces in 1975. Later, General Zia-ul-Haq used them against the Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Pervez Musharraf gave Gwadar to the Chinese for development in 2003. Three Chinese engineers were killed and nine injured on May 3, 2004 in a remote-controlled car bomb attack. Two months later, Pakistan claimed for the first time that India was involved in the attack. Locals were not happy over the employment of non-Balochis in the main development projects of their province. They also wanted a fairer share of royalties generated by the production of natural gas. Instead of addressing their grievances, the Musharraf regime launched a third military operation against them in 2005, further aggravating the situation.

Why must India discuss Balochistan with Pakistan?

For, it will be the transit route of at least two multinational gas pipelines — one from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan and the other from Iran to Pakistan. India could be a beneficiary of both pipelines, which could be extended from Multan to New Delhi. A stable Balochistan will, thus, ultimately benefit India.

MORAL OF THE STORY

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, China and India should join hands, and stop proxy wars in Kashmir and Balochistan. They can then change the fate of the whole region.

 

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.