World Affairs Board - View Single Post - Mig-29 K/kub Fighters For India, First pictures

subba · 02-24-2007, 09:35 AM

Just a little off the topic, but if i was anywhere within a mile of the Indian strategic decision making initiative, i would'nt consider US equipment for many reasons.

1. Unreliability (not necessarily of the equipment)

2. The inability of Americans (in general) to understand India's cultural, security, political and economic initiatives.

3. Highhandedness of officials in the past.

4. Massive arms sales to our neighbours for use against us.

Maybe Highsea Sir is right or wrong, but that is precisely the uncertainlity that is generated vis a vis the US. That uncertainity generated is enough to ground policy inititatives in favor of India buying US equipment. Possibly to the deterrent of both US and India as of today. But it does in many ways reflect tremendous trust deficit still to be covered up. And till that trust deficit is covered wholly, massive arms deals will not be forthcoming or desirable.

I tried to analyse why this is so, for 2 countries that have altogether different histories yet are converging to identical value systems and global interests. We've seen dozens of Teresita Schiffers, Albrights, in the state department come in and go. We've seen for a decade before 911, the amount of times we've warned the US on Islamic extremeism emanating from our West. We've fought and warded them off bravely for a decade before the US came around. The State dept played the Pakistani propaganda game all through the decade.

IMHO there is a larger trust deficit, lack of knowledge in the US SD and policy making apparatus than there is in the Indian one. When Micheal Witzels run schools of anti-hindu propaganda posing as mainstream academic scholars, what do you think the average Joe in US learns about us? Cows, curry, caste, sati, poverty. The exceptional exotic becomes the truth. So you have Indiana Jones and Harrison Fords who tell normal Joes in the US what India is. Who exploits the truth deficit? Exactly the enemy the US wants our support as a strategic partner. That is exactly where the State Dept South Asia heads, policy makers come from. Teresita Schaffer did a 1 year course on South Asia history to head the US SD policy think tank on SA affairs in the mid 90's.

You just have to read Nixon and Kissingers rants on Indira and India 1971, shocking revelation at the very least. How did they arrive at such biased notions. Certainly the decisions taken under that bias were tremendously detrimental to Indian security. The roots of that bias lay squarely on the distorted US educational bias against India rather than in geo-political strategy. Everything that Nixon and Kissinger did vis a vis 1971 was geo-politically a short term, medium term, and long term disaster.

One thing good Bush in earnestness tried to do was the civilian nuclear deal with India. The 2005 agreement between Bush and MMS was in very good faith. One could actually look at Bush and make out a genuine desire for rapproachment. Yet by the time it came to the US congress what did the Congress do? They inserted clauses in the Hyde act that makes it unpalatable, that show as i mention..highhandedness, trust deficit, unreliabitlity.

They reinforced in the Hyde Act each and every one of the very causes that cause this chasm.

Ironically it's on the p2p level that the maximum progress and initiatives have been taken. They must continue to grow. That will keep bridging the trust deficit. Maybe it will help. Certainly an economically growing India will help bridge that too. But as the economy grows it becomes riskier to put ones eggs into a basket where there is highhandedness expected, trust deficits, uncertainilty..etc.

This is just my 2p worth as i see it. I don't know how the Indian policy establishment is judging things.

02-24-2007, 09:35 AM	#58 (permalink)
subba Patron Join Date: 01-10-07 Posts: 282	Just a little off the topic, but if i was anywhere within a mile of the Indian strategic decision making initiative, i would'nt consider US equipment for many reasons. 1. Unreliability (not necessarily of the equipment) 2. The inability of Americans (in general) to understand India's cultural, security, political and economic initiatives. 3. Highhandedness of officials in the past. 4. Massive arms sales to our neighbours for use against us. Maybe Highsea Sir is right or wrong, but that is precisely the uncertainlity that is generated vis a vis the US. That uncertainity generated is enough to ground policy inititatives in favor of India buying US equipment. Possibly to the deterrent of both US and India as of today. But it does in many ways reflect tremendous trust deficit still to be covered up. And till that trust deficit is covered wholly, massive arms deals will not be forthcoming or desirable. I tried to analyse why this is so, for 2 countries that have altogether different histories yet are converging to identical value systems and global interests. We've seen dozens of Teresita Schiffers, Albrights, in the state department come in and go. We've seen for a decade before 911, the amount of times we've warned the US on Islamic extremeism emanating from our West. We've fought and warded them off bravely for a decade before the US came around. The State dept played the Pakistani propaganda game all through the decade. IMHO there is a larger trust deficit, lack of knowledge in the US SD and policy making apparatus than there is in the Indian one. When Micheal Witzels run schools of anti-hindu propaganda posing as mainstream academic scholars, what do you think the average Joe in US learns about us? Cows, curry, caste, sati, poverty. The exceptional exotic becomes the truth. So you have Indiana Jones and Harrison Fords who tell normal Joes in the US what India is. Who exploits the truth deficit? Exactly the enemy the US wants our support as a strategic partner. That is exactly where the State Dept South Asia heads, policy makers come from. Teresita Schaffer did a 1 year course on South Asia history to head the US SD policy think tank on SA affairs in the mid 90's. You just have to read Nixon and Kissingers rants on Indira and India 1971, shocking revelation at the very least. How did they arrive at such biased notions. Certainly the decisions taken under that bias were tremendously detrimental to Indian security. The roots of that bias lay squarely on the distorted US educational bias against India rather than in geo-political strategy. Everything that Nixon and Kissinger did vis a vis 1971 was geo-politically a short term, medium term, and long term disaster. One thing good Bush in earnestness tried to do was the civilian nuclear deal with India. The 2005 agreement between Bush and MMS was in very good faith. One could actually look at Bush and make out a genuine desire for rapproachment. Yet by the time it came to the US congress what did the Congress do? They inserted clauses in the Hyde act that makes it unpalatable, that show as i mention..highhandedness, trust deficit, unreliabitlity. They reinforced in the Hyde Act each and every one of the very causes that cause this chasm. Ironically it's on the p2p level that the maximum progress and initiatives have been taken. They must continue to grow. That will keep bridging the trust deficit. Maybe it will help. Certainly an economically growing India will help bridge that too. But as the economy grows it becomes riskier to put ones eggs into a basket where there is highhandedness expected, trust deficits, uncertainilty..etc. This is just my 2p worth as i see it. I don't know how the Indian policy establishment is judging things.