Your article in Confluence http://www.confluence.org.uk/2008/11/07/indian-foreign-policy-in-the-21st-century/- Response Part 2

Comment – on India’s military
You spoke earlier of “a rapidly modernising military”. Why is India modernising its military? It is expending its precious foreign exchange purchasing sophisticated weapons and equipment from the usual aggressors – the US, Israel, Russia, France and UK, countries that have stirred up much trouble in the world. So which country will the hardware be used against? Who is India’s target?
Has India fought and won a single war with an equal enemy? In 1962, India was humbled by China and dared not confront today’s vastly stronger China, a superpower in the making. That leaves little Pakistan (with 1/4 area and 1/6 population)?

Tragically, India’s army is being used today to bully and brutalise its own disaffected people in the North East and neighbours like Kashmir. Over half a million Indian troops are stationed in the Kashmir region and they have killed some 70,000 Kashmiris so far, many of them civilians. The Special Powers Act authorises the lowest ranking soldier to shoot & kill anybody on mere suspicion. Moreover, a quarter of India’s territory is controlled by Maoist and other such insurgents and secessionist groups, described by the PM as the most serious internal threat.
How can high military spending be justified in a country where the majority are destitute & malnourished? Has India got its priorities right?

MS3. “India moved away from its non-alignment stance, prominent in its foreign policy during the Cold War. This switch, along with the other factors discussed above, changed the international perceptions of India and allowed it to shape its 21st century foreign policy according to the shifting paradigms of the global order.”

Comment – on India’s foreign policy
The truth is that India has failed to make a mark in international affairs. It has bungled and miscalculated much of the way because of its diplomatic immaturity, lack of professionalism and its long held status as a bit player.
Here’s a brief review of India’s earlier foreign relations. The first Prime Minister, Nehru set up India as the world’s conscience keeper and judge. He pursued a foreign policy with grandstanding and hypocritical postures of moral superiority. Was Nehru suffering from delusions of grandeur? A spokesman in the United States administration had remarked: “India is attempting to act like a great power, which sometimes made it look foolish.” Another critic said that India had no foreign policy; it merely offered a running commentary on world affairs.

In 1962 Nehru awoke to reality when the seasoned Chinese army (well tested against the Americans in the Korean War 1950-53 invaded India. Before Nehru could collect his wits, China announced a unilateral withdrawal to 20 kilometres behind the disputed McMahon Line”. India was left to lick its wounds.

Sri Lanka (1987-90): The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) carried out a mission in northern and eastern Sri Lanka in 1987-1990 to disarm the LTTE as per the Indo-Sri Lanka accord. In what was labeled as Operation Pawan, the Indian Air Force flew seceral thousand sorties to and within Sri Lanka but the LTTE killed 1500 of our Army personnel. It was a mistake to tackle insurgency in an alien land when they can’t solve similar problems at home created by secessionist groups.

When In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, India backed the invasion. Russia withdrew in 1988.. Yet when the US attacked Iraq in 1991, India objected.
The 1991 Gulf War exhibited our bizarre performance in international relations. We supported Saddam Hussein when he attacked Kuwait, and loudly denounced the multinational force operations against Iraq organised by the US. Indian mobs protested before the American consulate in Calcutta until Washington demanded they desist and India had to comply. Later Kuwait paid back by expelling thousands of India workers. So India was the loser.

MS4. India and Great Power status
You say: “India will …need to keep the United States (US) as the focal point of its new foreign policy. The main reason for this is that close relations with the US will help convince the international community that India is truly a global player.
The challenge in New Delhi cultivating long-term relations with Washington lies in its ability, and desire, to conduct its foreign policy to the American tune. “

Comment – junior partner role
These proposals imply that India has neither the clout nor confidence to go it alone and shape an independent policy; it has to latch onto a big power to be taken seriously. China doesn’t have to do this – it is powerful and mature enough to proceed in its own right, without western certification. Hanging on to a lawless and treacherous power like the US (which bombs civilians, kidnaps & tortures suspects, supports Israel, etc) means accepting a subordinate status, a sort of ‘coolie’ to be ordered about at will. Isn’t it a high price to pay for this dubious global power status that is subject to the whims of the US? Where is the autonomy and respect?

Eddie D’Sa
London