PDA

View Full Version : Afghanistan, US, China, India and Pakistan - A Genuine Interview



anil
29 Sep 13,, 16:40
For a change, here is one NO BULLSHIT interview about Afghanistan, US, China, India and Pakistan
------------------------



Yossef Bodansky, former director of the United States Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare at the US House of Representatives, is an old South Asia hand, who had first warned of the Pakistan-China nexus in the 1990s.

He was also the first analyst to warn the world about Osama bin Laden and the Islamist terrorist network. Bodansky, who has written extensively on India and interacted with senior Indian officials over the years, believes that India has failed to take the strategic initiative that the post-Cold War period opened up and hence has witnessed a failure of its Afghan policy among others. Bodansky has been the director of research at the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), as well as a senior editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications, since 1983. He stayed on as a special adviser to Congress until January 2009. In the mid 1980s, he acted as a senior consultantfor the US department of defense and the department of state. He is the author of 11 books —including Bin Laden: TheMan Who Declared War on America (New York Times No.1 bestseller & Washington Post No.1 bestseller), The Secret History of the Iraq War (New York Times bestseller & Foreign Affairs Magazine bestseller), and Chechen Jihad: Al Qaeda’sTraining Ground and the Next Wave of Terror — and hundreds of articles, book chapters and Congressional reports. Mr Bodansky is a director at the Prague Society for International Cooperation, and serves on the Board of the Global Panel Foundation and several other institutions worldwide.
------------------------



Q: How is India’s Afghanistan policy viewed in the West?

A: New Delhi needs to see the bigger strategic picture. What New Delhi needs to understand is that the world is changing and is finally starting to re-assert itself in the post-Cold War period. The interim period is coming to an end and a lot of countries are trying to search out a future for themselves.

India is trying to find a future through the BRICS but is failing to understand that the BRICS has strategic implications as well. Each BRICS member is seeking to find its geopolitical and geo-economic interests.

India needs to understand where it stands and until it does that its regional activities are meaningless. These regional activities are not an end in themselves and cannot take place in isolation.

BRICS nations are not equal; China and Russia are bigger. Russia has a clear place: it is part of the industrialised north world and one of the poles of the heartland states. China, on the other hand, is a land power that has been able to assert itself in Asia.

Question is what is India? India is a huge subcontinent; it is the focal point of the Indian Ocean, and together with China, one of the two big powers of Asia.

India has to decide first whether it is a continental power, a littoral power or a link between the two. India has to decide what role it wishes to play; nobody can assign India a role in global affairs. Thereafter, India needs to develop relations according to its chosen role. And India needs to initiate relationships depending on where it is going as a regional and a world power.

For instance, India cannot allow the Indian Ocean to be dominated by another power. The commerce between the Far East, Europe and the Middle East is crucial. Hence, either India choses to secure these Indian Ocean routes as a maritime power or else someone else will. If that happens then the third party that secures the Indian Ocean would have a vested interest in containing India. But whether India wants to be the dominant maritime power in the India Ocean is a decision that can only be made by New Delhi.

At the same time, India is also a land power with its northern part sticking into Central Asia. Now India also needs to decide what kind of role it wishes to play as a land power. India either has to make a deal with China on the latter’s terms or else it has to reach out to Russia or other powers to compete with China. There is no other alternative as China is the rising hegemon which is increasingly talking in terms of its historic empire that once ruled most of Asia.
India and Israel are two countries that have civilisations with political character going back thousands of years or as long as China’s. India’s civilisation will not accept China’s civilizational hegemony.

China knows this and that it cannot make a deal with India on its terms. Therefore, it seeks to stifle India and prevent it from rising. The troubles on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) serve to remind India who is the boss. To take on China, India would have to develop an assertive regional posture and challenge China and its regional alliances in Central and West Asia where the Chinese have a lot at stake. Russia is a potential ally but Russia will not do the job for India. India will benefit from co-operation with Russia which has an interest in containing China in West and Central Asia but much less interest in containing China in Leh and Srinagar.

To repeat what I was saying since the early 1990’s, India must carve for itself a regional strategic role and assertive presence. Once the West needs India strategically and economically, it will pay attention to, and recognise, India’s regional interests and aspirations (such as Afghanistan). Presently, India is passive and reactive —so what’s the point paying attention or doing something for India? In contrast —China is holding the West hostage by its economic leverage and won’t let the West forget for a second, and Pakistan —China’s preeminent protégé and proxy —is threatening to blow-up anything and everything as the region’s madman —so why pick-up fight with the two?

Q: Where does Afghanistan fit into this equation?

A: India needs to look at Afghanistan in terms of its grand strategic vision. Pakistan is a small country; it is an army with a failed state. One reason why Pakistan survives is because of China’s investments in its nuclear capabilities and its economy both aimed at stifling India. China can constantly divert India’s attention by making Pakistan do something or other like border firing, infiltrating terrorists or carrying out a spectacular terrorist strike.

India’s fixation on a zero sum game with Pakistan is meaningless. India needs to look at its policies with its western neighbours in terms of its grand strategy and not by being reactive. A lot of Indian activities in Afghanistan are aimed to give Pakistan a hard time. Nothing wrong with this —but strategically it is meaningless.

On the other hand, if India can work out a larger posture in Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, preferably in conjunction with Russia, and also dominate the Indian Ocean till the tip of Africa, then it would also have a say in what is happening to the west of Pakistan.

The key question is: Will India be stifled by Pakistan, a subcontractor of China, which is the current situation, or will India stifle Pakistan at land and sea because India is the regional power that is stifling China and not just its agent Pakistan?

It is high time that India starts thinking of where it is going as a global and not regional power or just another Third World country. Once it does that then its policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan should be adapted into its lager overall policy.

Q: Does Washington accept Islamabad’s view that New Delhi is using Afghanistan to de-stabilise Pakistan?

A: Yes. Obama’s Washington is even more hostile to New Delhi than Islamabad. Today, India is using Afghanistan to get at Pakistan. But that is not strategy; it is just another pissing match. It is irrelevant in global terms. From the US point of view, India’s insistence in being in Afghanistan interferes with its aims to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan and China.

Q: But why would the United States want to do this?

A: Why not? If we make a deal with Pakistan, the Taliban will not shoot at our troops and we can leave peacefully. India, on the other hand, does not play a role as a global power so why should we take it seriously.

Q: A number of US commentators in recent times have suggested that Pakistan’s obsession with Afghanistan can be resolved if the Kashmir issue is sorted out once and for all with India. Do you believe that a Kashmir “solution” will end Pakistan’s preoccupation with Afghanistan?

A: Obama’s Washington wants Kashmir resolved in Pakistan’s favour —Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.
India is so passive that the United States feels it can pressure India to make concessions in Kashmir so that the US can get a better deal with Pakistan. Kashmir should not be on the menu but it is. Large swathes of Siberian territory owned by Russia are claimed by China but the United States never dares to tell Russia to cede any territory to China so that the US gets a better economic deal with China. But the state department does think that India can be pressured to compromise on Kashmir and thereby secure a better deal for Washington with the Pakistanis. Such a thing would be inconceivable if India was a world power.

When Pakistani terrorists attacked the India parliament, the United States told India that it dare not attack Pakistan. India has brought this upon itself by being passive. It is fighting for crumbs in Afghanistan.

Q: Why has the US been reluctant to accept a greater Indian role in Afghanistan?

A: We want China (that can help with Iran) and its proxy Pakistan.

Q: Is the view that Washington is prepared to cut a deal with Pakistan and the Quetta Shura at any cost credible?

A: Yes.

Q: Despite being aware that Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the insurgency in Afghanistan, Washington seems to be going out of its way to cede control of south and eastern Afghanistan to Pakistan. What precisely is the strategic thinking behind these moves? And do you believe that such a move will stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan?

A: This is what Pakistan wants and this is what will make China happy.

Q: Do you believe that Washington will pull out all troops from Afghanistan by 2014 if the Bilateral Security Agreement with Kabul is not signed within the next few months?

A: Obama wants Zero Troops. He’ll withdraw if he can whatever the excuse.

Q: Would a small contingent of about 10,000 US troops and air force elements be able to stabilise Afghanistan with the help of the Afghan security forces post 2014?

A: Well over 1,00,000 troops failed. So why should 10,000 have any impact? If any soldier remains —it will be a symbolic gesture.

Q: The Pakistan government despite promising all help to President Karzai to re-start the peace process have decided not to release pro-talk Taliban leaders such as Mullah Baradar. They have released a total of about 26 low level Taliban and claim they have done their bit to facilitate talks. Do you believe that the Pakistani establishment will allow direct talks between the Taliban and the Kabul regime?

A: Karzai is a nobody that everybody—including Obama’s Washington —knows by now. Who cares what Karzai was told or promised? Pakistan (the ISI) is building a regional network based on tribal and “Taliban” chiefs that will control most of Afghanistan. The ISI already does so for all intent and purpose.

Q: India has helped Afghanistan with a number of developmental projects but has publicly espoused a “keep our heads down” policy in Afghanistan. Do you think this policy has worked?

A: No. The Afghans are not masters of their own destiny. India’s efforts failed to convince the US that it has a legitimate role in Afghanistan. It has been a near total waste.

cdude
30 Sep 13,, 17:27
It will be interesting to watch how shit hits the fan when the US completely pulls out from Afghanistan. How many Indian Consulates will be demolished? That's the question.

Is Afghanistan Ready? by Shashi Tharoor - Project Syndicate (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/is-afghanistan-ready-)

Yeah, we all know Indians are there to help the Afghans. Right. Billions could've been used to buy food and medicine for the poor, instead, let's mess with the Pakistanis. Real smart "investment".

antimony
30 Sep 13,, 18:04
It will be interesting to watch how shit hits the fan when the US completely pulls out from Afghanistan. How many Indian Consulates will be demolished? That's the question.


Ah dear friend, you back again. Its interesting to see you salivating at the thought...

anil
30 Sep 13,, 18:10
cdude, the pakistanis are nothing without US and chinese backing. The real problem for india is not fighting pakistan but a combination of these three countries.

Regardless of perception, india's engagement in afghanistan was in fact limited to infrastructre and humanitarian needs in contrast to pakistan who is sending guns and militants. According to Yossef Bodansky, this is a "pissing match" irrelevant in global terms and a waste.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country. India cannot do anything there due to geopolitical dynamics. Afghanistans future will be decided on US, china and pakistans terms.

Yossef Bodansky has made it explicitly clear about the future course of events for afghanistan

cdude
30 Sep 13,, 18:47
Ah dear friend, you back again. Its interesting to see you salivating at the thought...

Always attack the messenger. always :cool:

cdude
30 Sep 13,, 18:51
cdude, the pakistanis are nothing without US and chinese backing. The real problem for india is not fighting pakistan but a combination of these three countries.

Regardless of perception, india's engagement in afghanistan was in fact limited to infrastructre and humanitarian needs in contrast to pakistan who is sending guns and militants. According to Yossef Bodansky, this is a "pissing match" irrelevant in global terms and a waste.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country. India cannot do anything there due to geopolitical dynamics. Afghanistans future will be decided on US, china and pakistans terms.

Yossef Bodansky has made it explicitly clear about the future course of events for afghanistan

And how will India win fighting against a combination of Pakistan/China/USA? Soviet Union tried.

antimony
30 Sep 13,, 19:19
And how will India win fighting against a combination of Pakistan/China/USA? Soviet Union tried.

Why should it need to?

anil
30 Sep 13,, 19:21
And how will India win fighting against a combination of Pakistan/China/USA? Soviet Union tried.
It can't. India will get out of the way.

Officer of Engineers
30 Sep 13,, 19:38
And how will India win fighting against a combination of Pakistan/China/USA? Soviet Union tried.You're joking. The only member of that pact that mattered was the US. Pakistan and China were scared shitless.

Dreadnought
30 Sep 13,, 20:34
cdude, the pakistanis are nothing without US and chinese backing. The real problem for india is not fighting pakistan but a combination of these three countries.

Regardless of perception, india's engagement in afghanistan was in fact limited to infrastructre and humanitarian needs in contrast to pakistan who is sending guns and militants. According to Yossef Bodansky, this is a "pissing match" irrelevant in global terms and a waste.

Afghanistan is a landlocked country. India cannot do anything there due to geopolitical dynamics. Afghanistans future will be decided on US, china and pakistans terms.

Yossef Bodansky has made it explicitly clear about the future course of events for afghanistan


And yet India buys billions in US military hardware from them. How do you define that little problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/us/india-military-equipment/index.html

They also have spent billions with Russia.

Firestorm
30 Sep 13,, 21:07
And yet India buys billions in US military hardware from them. How do you define that little problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/us/india-military-equipment/index.html

They also have spent billions with Russia.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. The Russians and Chinese don't always see eye-to-eye with each other. Yet the Chinese have bought all manner of military hardware from them over the years. They would buy it from the US too if you guys were willing to sell.

India needs decent military hardware for its forces and will buy it from whoever is willing to sell. It has no connection to the ground realities in Afghanistan and US aims there, which Bodansky seems to have captured pretty well, although I don't agree with everything that he says in there.

A shout-out to Captain Lemontree. Captain, this is what I meant when I talked about India's interests in Afghanistan being completely different from those of the US in another thread.

antimony
30 Sep 13,, 21:48
Always attack the messenger. always :cool:

Not the messenger, the aspirant:cool:

cdude
30 Sep 13,, 22:15
It can't. India will get out of the way.

None of your strategic planners saw this coming on their drawing board? I wonder what they were thinking when they decided it's a good idea to throw billions of dollars into Afghanistan.

Indians can do a lot of things, printing dollars is not one of them.

cdude
30 Sep 13,, 22:17
You're joking. The only member of that pact that mattered was the US. Pakistan and China were scared shitless.

I think you have to define "scared shitless". Moving your strategic assets away from the frontline is not "scared shitless", it's being smart.

Blademaster
30 Sep 13,, 22:51
Indians can do a lot of things, printing dollars is not one of them.

So you are tacitly saying that China can print out dollars?

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 01:28
So you are tacitly saying that China can print out dollars?

You are using your imagination a bit too much.

I will say it again India spent billions on Afghanistan to mess with Pakistan while her poorest 50% starve on the street, have no medical care and education to survive. This has nothing to do with the US, Russia, or China. Nobody seriously asked India to "invest" in Afghanistan while receiving billions of dollars of aids herself every year. It's a case of mis-allocation of capitals.

Tronic
01 Oct 13,, 02:11
I will say it again India spent billions on Afghanistan to mess with Pakistan

To mess with Pakistan, or to ensure that incidents like IC 814 are not repeated?


while her poorest 50% starve on the street, have no medical care and education to survive. This has nothing to do with the US, Russia, or China. Nobody seriously asked India to "invest" in Afghanistan while receiving billions of dollars of aids herself every year. It's a case of mis-allocation of capitals.

It's not mis-allocation of funds when the government has the electoral approval of the Indian people in deciding foreign policy. One of the good things about having a democratic setup. ;)

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 02:34
To mess with Pakistan, or to ensure that incidents like IC 814 are not repeated?

It's not mis-allocation of funds when the government has the electoral approval of the Indian people in deciding foreign policy. One of the good things about having a democratic setup. ;)

I watched the Mumbai'08 episode. Your country looked un-prepared and did nothing to the invaders, really. You can talk the talk, but with backings from both the US and China, I don't see Pakistan fears your country one bit. So keep throwing money at your 10 consulates in Afghanistan, will be rewarded.

As for your second statement, it sounds like something out of a confused mouth who has not idea what it's talking about.

DarthSiddius
01 Oct 13,, 02:34
You are using your imagination a bit too much.

I will say it again India spent billions on Afghanistan to mess with Pakistan while her poorest 50% starve on the street, have no medical care and education to survive. This has nothing to do with the US, Russia, or China. Nobody seriously asked India to "invest" in Afghanistan while receiving billions of dollars of aids herself every year. It's a case of mis-allocation of capitals.

Sorry to barge in on your intellectual discourse but why do you think there's a miss allocation of capitals in this case? India's aid to Afghanistan stands at about USD 10.8 Billion as of now (over the course of a decade), to give context the centrally sanctioned expenditure for the food security bill and the right to education bill alone add up to about USD 58.2 Billion.

In fact, this years union budget has allocated about USD 20 Billion for various government funded civil programs, this alone is 20 times the annual expenditure allocated for Afghanistan.

Officer of Engineers
01 Oct 13,, 03:03
I think you have to define "scared shitless". Moving your strategic assets away from the frontline is not "scared shitless", it's being smart.Surrendering 100 miles of your own territory only to learn that it meant squat all is scared shitless.

Tronic
01 Oct 13,, 03:04
I watched the Mumbai'08 episode. Your country looked un-prepared and did nothing to the invaders, really.

It looked unprepared, because it was unprepared.


You can talk the talk, but with backings from both the US and China, I don't see Pakistan fears your country one bit. So keep throwing money at your 10 consulates in Afghanistan, will be rewarded.

I don't really know how to respond to this, because Pakistan not fearing India is actually a good thing. Then you mention the consulates, which are the sore point on the Pakistani side, and I'm left looking for the point you're trying to make? :confu:


As for your second statement, it sounds like something out of a confused mouth who has not idea what it's talking about.

Mind quoting which statement you're inferring to, so I can make things clearer for you? :rolleyes:

antimony
01 Oct 13,, 03:04
Sorry to barge in on your intellectual discourse but why do you think there's a miss allocation of capitals in this case? India's aid to Afghanistan stands at about USD 10.8 Billion as of now (over the course of a decade), to give context the centrally sanctioned expenditure for the food security bill and the right to education bill alone add up to about USD 58.2 Billion.

In fact, this years union budget has allocated about USD 20 Billion for various government funded civil programs, this alone is 20 times the annual expenditure allocated for Afghanistan.

Don't bring your silly facts into this rhetoric fueled rage/ sarcasm/ whatever it is, or he will post videos of Chinese roads in Tibet

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 03:10
It looked unprepared, because it was unprepared.



I don't really know how to respond to this, because Pakistan not fearing India is actually a good thing. Then you mention the consulates, which are the sore point on the Pakistani side, and I'm left looking for the point you're trying to make? :confu:



Mind quoting which statement you're inferring to, so I can make things clearer for you? :rolleyes:

"It's not mis-allocation of funds when the government has the electoral approval of the Indian people in deciding foreign policy."

You are saying because the government is elected, it cannot misallocate funds. This is utterly nonsense.

Officer of Engineers
01 Oct 13,, 03:21
I think you have to define "scared shitless". Moving your strategic assets away from the frontline is not "scared shitless", it's being smart.The history is clear. Both Peking and Islamabad went begging to Washington for protection. They were both scared shitless.

Tronic
01 Oct 13,, 03:31
"It's not mis-allocation of funds when the government has the electoral approval of the Indian people in deciding foreign policy."

You are saying because the government is elected, it cannot misallocate funds. This is utterly nonsense.

To give you a clearer picture; A Chief Minister has been forced to step down by the people in India for not spending enough on security. The ruling party came under intense pressure by the people for not adequately funding the defence forces, and an Indian ex-PM, IK Gujral, is hounded out to this day for slashing RAW's budget and ending several of it's overseas operations. Therefore, it is not "misallocation" of funds when the government does what the people voted them in to do.

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 03:48
To give you a clearer picture; A Chief Minister has been forced to step down by the people in India for not spending enough on security. The ruling party came under intense pressure by the people for not adequately funding the defence forces, and an Indian ex-PM, IK Gujral, is hounded out to this day for slashing RAW's budget and ending several of it's overseas operations. Therefore, it is not "misallocation" of funds when the government does what the people voted them in to do.

Nonsense, so you had a referendum to decide how much money to throw at Afghanistan to mess with Pakistan?

It's in your government's discretionary to spend money. And that money could've been used in more productive places instead of getting no returns (even worse, you get more trouble waiting to happen when the US pulls out).

cataphract
01 Oct 13,, 03:51
For a change, here is one NO BULLSHIT interview about Afghanistan, US, China, India and Pakistan
------------------------

Q: But why would the United States want to do this?

A: Why not? If we make a deal with Pakistan, the Taliban will not shoot at our troops and we can leave peacefully. India, on the other hand, does not play a role as a global power so why should we take it seriously.

Q: A number of US commentators in recent times have suggested that Pakistan’s obsession with Afghanistan can be resolved if the Kashmir issue is sorted out once and for all with India. Do you believe that a Kashmir “solution” will end Pakistan’s preoccupation with Afghanistan?

A: Obama’s Washington wants Kashmir resolved in Pakistan’s favour —Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.
India is so passive that the United States feels it can pressure India to make concessions in Kashmir so that the US can get a better deal with Pakistan. Kashmir should not be on the menu but it is. Large swathes of Siberian territory owned by Russia are claimed by China but the United States never dares to tell Russia to cede any territory to China so that the US gets a better economic deal with China. But the state department does think that India can be pressured to compromise on Kashmir and thereby secure a better deal for Washington with the Pakistanis. Such a thing would be inconceivable if India was a world power.

When Pakistani terrorists attacked the India parliament, the United States told India that it dare not attack Pakistan. India has brought this upon itself by being passive. It is fighting for crumbs in Afghanistan.



The US has repeatedly tried to intervene in Kashmir, but our babus, to their credit, have prevented this from happening so far. This guy seriously underestimates our MEA mandarins. I also disagree with his impression of Karzai. Karzai is a sleazy scumbag, but not at all a nobody. You don't retain the throne in Afghanistan for 12 years by being a nobody. He is a smart customer, and India and US have to work with him, whether we like it or not. Come 2014, he won't be pushed aside by the Pakistanis that easily.

Tronic
01 Oct 13,, 04:04
Nonsense, so you had a referendum to decide how much money to throw at Afghanistan to mess with Pakistan?

It's in your government's discretionary to spend money. And that money could've been used in more productive places instead of getting no returns (even worse, you get more trouble waiting to happen when the US pulls out).

Not a referendum, but still a hell of a lot more say than any single one of their neighbours.

Indians get what they vote for. I wonder what makes you so concerned about India's "unproductive" spending. :rolleyes:

Officer of Engineers
01 Oct 13,, 04:29
You don't retain the throne in Afghanistan for 12 years by being a nobody.He's the mayor of Kabul.

anil
01 Oct 13,, 04:49
None of your strategic planners saw this coming on their drawing board? I wonder what they were thinking when they decided it's a good idea to throw billions of dollars into Afghanistan.
In 1965 indo-pak war, india lost a part of kashmir to pakistan and along with it a direct land route to afghanistan. This event in 65 was enough to expel india out of afghanistan forever. Whether this was foreseen strategic machiavellianism by china/pak or a coincidence, we don't know.

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 14:13
Sorry to barge in on your intellectual discourse but why do you think there's a miss allocation of capitals in this case? India's aid to Afghanistan stands at about USD 10.8 Billion as of now (over the course of a decade), to give context the centrally sanctioned expenditure for the food security bill and the right to education bill alone add up to about USD 58.2 Billion.

In fact, this years union budget has allocated about USD 20 Billion for various government funded civil programs, this alone is 20 times the annual expenditure allocated for Afghanistan.


Let's use your numbers, 1 billion on Afghanistan per year. According to this article 2013 Union budget of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Union_budget_of_India)

India spends US$720 million for medical education and research and only USD 10 billion on education.


What does it say about your government's priorities?

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 14:20
Not a referendum, but still a hell of a lot more say than any single one of their neighbours.

Indians get what they vote for. I wonder what makes you so concerned about India's "unproductive" spending. :rolleyes:

It's a pleasure to point out stupidity in government spending and it's double fun to see a bunch of internet users vehemently defend the government at a time their country is fiscally and economically screwed.

Your central bankers would appreciate that 10 billion hard earned USD.

DarthSiddius
01 Oct 13,, 14:40
Let's use your numbers, 1 billion on Afghanistan per year. According to this article 2013 Union budget of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Union_budget_of_India)

India spends US$720 million for medical education and research and only USD 10 billion on education.


What does it say about your government's priorities?

Well that would be true if only the center was responsible for all of education in India. The state governments have to foot the bill as well. In any case, to give you some perspective, ISRO's 'Mangalyaan' project has a budget of about USD 70 Million - to send a satellite to Mars, let this sink in. A USD 10 Billion budget for education will get you places in India. But it would be fair to say that more the money allocated for social causes, the better society Indians will get and as India's economy grows, so will the government's expenditure. Also, the central budget currently does not account for the funding sanctioned for implementing the 'Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act' - USD 38.2 Billion over the course of 5 years.

There are a lot of things wrong in India but this is not one of them.

Doktor
01 Oct 13,, 14:48
Let's use your numbers, 1 billion on Afghanistan per year. According to this article 2013 Union budget of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Union_budget_of_India)

India spends US$720 million for medical education and research and only USD 10 billion on education.


What does it say about your government's priorities?

That they want more doctors and nurses then anything else.

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 17:46
Well that would be true if only the center was responsible for all of education in India. The state governments have to foot the bill as well. In any case, to give you some perspective, ISRO's 'Mangalyaan' project has a budget of about USD 70 Million - to send a satellite to Mars, let this sink in.

There are a lot of things wrong in India but this is not one of them.

Let what sink in? Your government underpaid your engineers. That's why all your smart people grab the first chance to leave for better opportunities in the west. Your government could've used that 10 billion USD to better pay your best engineers instead of pissing that in Afghanistan and beg for more H-1B slots (discussed in the same interview).

DarthSiddius
01 Oct 13,, 18:01
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Please don't!

antimony
01 Oct 13,, 18:16
Let what sink in? Your government underpaid your engineers.

Do you even know how the Indian economic systems works or is it just going to be rhetoric and false passion? Why should the government start paying engineers?



That's why all your smart people grab the first chance to leave for better opportunities in the west.


Um no...

A certain percentage (certainly more than what it should be) do go, but many (most) stay back. This is certainly true of the IIT/ IIM folks from my batch. And now I see a trend of people actually returning to India for research/ product engineering jobs, which were not there before. Fun fact, Indian bachelors in the US now find it difficult to get married, because young Indian women would actually stay back with their own jobs.



Your government could've used that 10 billion USD to better pay your best engineers instead of pissing that in Afghanistan and beg for more H-1B slots (discussed in the same interview).

Again, why the hell should the government pay the engineers, that's the job of industry that is supposed to employ them. Does the Federal government start paying all MIT/ Harvard grads as soon as they step out of college or do they look for jobs?

Doktor
01 Oct 13,, 18:21
Do you even know how the Indian economic systems works or is it just going to be rhetoric and false passion? Why should the government start paying engineers?

What he meant is the gov to create opportunities or to ease the doing biz.

From what I have read so far around here in various threads, India lacks in that field, hence why people move elsewhere. $10bn would surely help, but how can you help people that are not around? First they should come back.

DarthSiddius
01 Oct 13,, 18:34
What he meant is the gov to create opportunities or to ease the doing biz.

From what I have read so far around here in various threads, India lacks in that field, hence why people move elsewhere. $10bn would surely help, but how can you help people that are not around? First they should come back.

I am pretty sure that's not what he meant, but let us give him the benefit of doubt. Human resource is something India has an abundance of, (it's getting wasted as of now!) there are initiatives both in the public as well as the private sector to improve the quality of education.

People emigrate because of a number of different reasons, .... well mostly better career opportunities and quality of life. I'm sure given enough time and economic development in India this brain drain will slowdown, it is already happening btw.

EDIT: I'm an Indian living in Canada, I should know right? :Dancing-Banana:

cdude
01 Oct 13,, 18:34
Do you even know how the Indian economic systems works or is it just going to be rhetoric and false passion? Why should the government start paying engineers?
Um no...
A certain percentage (certainly more than what it should be) do go, but many (most) stay back. This is certainly true of the IIT/ IIM folks from my batch. And now I see a trend of people actually returning to India for research/ product engineering jobs, which were not there before. Fun fact, Indian bachelors in the US now find it difficult to get married, because young Indian women would actually stay back with their own jobs.
Again, why the hell should the government pay the engineers, that's the job of industry that is supposed to employ them. Does the Federal government start paying all MIT/ Harvard grads as soon as they step out of college or do they look for jobs?

So the ISRO is not a government agency now? 70mil USD for a Mars exploration project? Either the BS of the century or the engineers are severely underpaid

Doktor
01 Oct 13,, 18:42
EDIT: I'm an Indian living in Canada, I should know right? :Dancing-Banana:

Then it must be cold for you there :biggrin:

DarthSiddius
01 Oct 13,, 18:44
It's not the cold but the snow shoveling that hurts.

Firestorm
01 Oct 13,, 18:45
Cdude, I'll be happy to start an "India Sucks!" thread for you to rant in all day long if you promise not to derail all the other threads.

farhan_9909
01 Oct 13,, 18:55
In 1965 indo-pak war, india lost a part of kashmir to pakistan and along with it a direct land route to afghanistan. This event in 65 was enough to expel india out of afghanistan forever. Whether this was foreseen strategic machiavellianism by china/pak or a coincidence, we don't know.

My brother it seems like you were sleeping throughout your history lectures or may be not even attended

As far as i know We have not captured any part of India ever,and in 65 war everything ended up with tashkent agreement

Kashmir was neither under india nor Pakistan until being declared a disputed territory

antimony
01 Oct 13,, 19:18
So the ISRO is not a government agency now? 70mil USD for a Mars exploration project? Either the BS of the century or the engineers are severely underpaid

Lets examine your sentences again.


Let what sink in? Your government underpaid your engineers. That's why all your smart people grab the first chance to leave for better opportunities in the west.

You said that all of our smart people are moving because of underpaid engineers. Are you now saying that the government should have recruited all smart people for ISRO instead of spending any money in Afghanistan? Also, even if we could get by paying only 70 Mn, we should pay them much more, else they will all migrate.
Is that the gist of your diatribe?

cataphract
01 Oct 13,, 20:03
He's the mayor of Kabul.

That's the best you can get in Afghanistan. His predecessors were no better.

Officer of Engineers
01 Oct 13,, 20:21
Najibullah and Omar commanded their own armies.

cdude
02 Oct 13,, 01:52
Surrendering 100 miles of your own territory only to learn that it meant squat all is scared shitless.

Wondering what you mean by 100 miles of territory, square miles?

This is not the Zhenbao Island you are talking about, right?

Zhenbao Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhenbao_Island)

Officer of Engineers
02 Oct 13,, 02:03
Main force concentrations were 100 miles behind the border, meaning that Soviet forces must travel 100 miles into China before they can engage Chinese strong forces. The idea was to stretch the Soviet LOC. The 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan showed that 100 miles meant squat all to the Soviets which spurred the PLA onto a modernization program.

cdude
02 Oct 13,, 03:00
Main force concentrations were 100 miles behind the border, meaning that Soviet forces must travel 100 miles into China before they can engage Chinese strong forces. The idea was to stretch the Soviet LOC. The 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan showed that 100 miles meant squat all to the Soviets which spurred the PLA onto a modernization program.

Most if not all of the division level headquarters are located in major population centers. And very few population centers are within 100 miles of Soviet border. I think it's just simple logistics.

To this day, PLA don't guard borders. It's the PAP's and in the old days, militia's duty.

Officer of Engineers
02 Oct 13,, 05:40
Most if not all of the division level headquarters are located in major population centers. And very few population centers are within 100 miles of Soviet border. I think it's just simple logistics.Soviet garrisons are even further away but that does not change the fact that the PLA was counting on that extra 100 miles to stretch the Soviet LOCs and was planning to surrendering 100 miles of Chinese territory.

What's more, that 100 miles meant nothing to the Soviets.

The simple fact is that the battle was going to be in Chinese cities and not the border area ... if those Chinese cities survived nukes and fire bombing (doubtful).


To this day, PLA don't guard borders. It's the PAP's and in the old days, militia's duty.The border area has been agreed to and both sides will maintain their formations 100 miles from the border.

cdude
02 Oct 13,, 14:09
Soviet garrisons are even further away but that does not change the fact that the PLA was counting on that extra 100 miles to stretch the Soviet LOCs and was planning to surrendering 100 miles of Chinese territory.

What's more, that 100 miles meant nothing to the Soviets.

The simple fact is that the battle was going to be in Chinese cities and not the border area ... if those Chinese cities survived nukes and fire bombing (doubtful).

Well, the China in the mess of cultural revolution against the Soviet Union at her peak? Yeah, 100 miles sound about right. It might mean nothing to the Soviets, it made a lot of difference for PLA logistics. China simply didn't have the roads and trucks to support an inch-by-inch defense against the Russians.

You know whats scared shitless? Gaddafi gave up nuclear weapon program was scared shitless. Did Mao or Deng fly to Moscow begging for peace? They didn't even bother talk to Moscow. They designed a workable strategy that in retrospect probably the best they could do. Nothing cowardly about that.



The border area has been agreed to and both sides will maintain their formations 100 miles from the border.

Not just borders with Russia, PAP and provincial military districts patrol all the borders. Not the PLA, at least not the hardcore PLA.

Officer of Engineers
02 Oct 13,, 14:46
Well, the China in the mess of cultural revolution against the Soviet Union at her peak? Yeah, 100 miles sound about right. It might mean nothing to the Soviets, it made a lot of difference for PLA logistics. China simply didn't have the roads and trucks to support an inch-by-inch defense against the Russians.Oh baloney, the Chinese were even prepared to retreat. When the enemy attacks, we retreat. When the enemy stalls, we harrass. When the enemy retreats, we attack. Translation, the Chinese were going to lose the war well before they can start fighting. Lop Nor and Peking were going to be nuclear fireballs while the 38 and 39 GAs would be running straight south.


You know whats scared shitless? Gaddafi gave up nuclear weapon program was scared shitless. Did Mao or Deng fly to Moscow begging for peace? They didn't even bother talk to Moscow. They designed a workable strategy that in retrospect probably the best they could do. Nothing cowardly about that.Zhou En-Lai went begging on hands and knees to the Americans to form an alliance. That's scared shitless.


Not just borders with Russia, PAP and provincial military districts patrol all the borders. Not the PLA, at least not the hardcore PLA.1979 and 1984 1st and 2nd Sino-VN Wars, not to mention the garrisons on the Sino-Indo border.

cdude
02 Oct 13,, 16:21
Oh baloney, the Chinese were even prepared to retreat. When the enemy attacks, we retreat. When the enemy stalls, we harrass. When the enemy retreats, we attack. Translation, the Chinese were going to lose the war well before they can start fighting. Lop Nor and Peking were going to be nuclear fireballs while the 38 and 39 GAs would be running straight south.


If I gave you 4 million farmers with AK's plus some old tanks here and there, 10 nukes against a military force with hundreds of thousands of tanks and tens thousands of nukes, what would you do? Wake me up if anyone could think of anything better. The best case scenario is to draw the Soviets into the "people's war" which is what happened in Afghanistan.




Zhou En-Lai went begging on hands and knees to the Americans to form an alliance. That's scared shitless.



If you've ever seen a picture of Zhou, you would know he's not capable of begging on both hands as his left hand was disabled. I am sure he wanted to make an alliance with Nixon. That's just being smart strategically.

What did Zhou give up to be friend with Nixon?

Officer of Engineers
02 Oct 13,, 16:30
If I gave you 4 million farmers with AK's plus some old tanks here and there, 10 nukes against a military force with hundreds of thousands of tanks and tens thousands of nukes, what would you do?I would not piss off the Soviets and start a war in the first place. That's being idiotic strategically.


Wake me up if anyone could think of anything better. The best case scenario is to draw the Soviets into the "people's war" which is what happened in Afghanistan.The best case scenario is to abandon Maoism and adopt Soviet economic practices minus their military expenditures ... which is exactly what DXP did with the Americans.


If you've ever seen a picture of Zhou, you would know he's not capable of begging on both hands as his left hand was disabled.The begging was real.


I am sure he wanted to make an alliance with Nixon. That's just being smart strategically.He didn't have a choice. The PLA had determined that the Soviets were going to start a war to take Northern China and nuke the rest. Nixon was Zhou's only hope of avoiding this war.


What did Zhou give up to be friend with Nixon?87 divisions. With China's reapproachment, China's participation in any future NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict was guarranteed. China cannot afford the Warsaw Pact to win. China would be next ... or first if Moscow decides to get rid of this monkey off her back before she takes on NATO.

cdude
02 Oct 13,, 16:42
I would not piss off the Soviets and start a war in the first place. That's being idiotic strategically.

The best case scenario is to abandon Maoism and adopt Soviet economic practices minus their military expenditures ... which is exactly what DXP did with the Americans.

The begging was real.


I agree with your first 2 bullets. But I don't buy the begging part. Begging happens when the other side has very little to gain, you are saying the US has nothing to gain allying with China? Then why did Nixon make it a big deal and visited Mao? Obviously it was a win-win situation and both sides benefited tremendously.

Also Deng's economic reform was way more radical than the Soviet model


He didn't have a choice. The PLA had determined that the Soviets were going to start a war to take Northern China and nuke the rest. Nixon was Zhou's only hope of avoiding this war.


Apparently the Soviets was not as crazy as Mao thought they were. Or was it the China-US alliance stopped Soviets' plan?




87 divisions. With China's reapproachment, China's participation in any future NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict was guarranteed. China cannot afford the Warsaw Pact to win. China would be next ... or first if Moscow decides to get rid of this monkey off her back before she takes on NATO.

Was the guarantee an oral one or was there any agreement signed?

Officer of Engineers
02 Oct 13,, 17:06
I agree with your first 2 bullets. But I don't buy the begging part. Begging happens when the other side has very little to gain, you are saying the US has nothing to gain allying with China? Then why did Nixon make it a big deal and visited Mao? Obviously it was a win-win situation and both sides benefited tremendously.Nixon played the Chinese and the Soviets off of each other. He made as big hoopla with detente as he did with Mao's visit. He also signed SALT I which was far more important than his Mao visit.


Also Deng's economic reform was way more radical than the Soviet modelHe also came along after the Soviet economy stagnated and the American economy took off. During the height of the Cold War, both models provided for their citizens a standard of living unimagined by any Chinese leader. Electricity in every house.


Apparently the Soviets was not as crazy as Mao thought they were. Or was it the China-US alliance stopped Soviets' plan?Nixon, in his memoirs, told Brezhnev no to his face during one of their summits.


Was the guarantee an oral one or was there any agreement signed?Mutual understanding. Strategic necessity didn't allow the Chinese any other choice. NATO-Warsaw Pact goes up, the Chinese have a choice of not letting the 45 divisions facing them going West ... or risk 187 divsions coming East after the Soviets get through with NATO.

Blademaster
02 Oct 13,, 17:41
OOE,

Do you think the Soviets would get through NATO?

Doktor
02 Oct 13,, 18:25
OOE,

Do you think the Soviets would get through NATO?

Which year?

Blademaster
02 Oct 13,, 18:32
Which year?

Anytime.

Officer of Engineers
02 Oct 13,, 18:36
OOE,

Do you think the Soviets would get through NATO?I don't know. 4 Brigade was going to die either way.

Deltacamelately
03 Oct 13,, 13:46
....the Chinese have a choice of not letting the 45 divisions facing them going West ... or risk 187 divsions coming East after the Soviets get through with NATO.
Sir,

Imo, that would be a congestion kill ..... for the Soviets.

Officer of Engineers
03 Oct 13,, 16:11
Sir,

Imo, that would be a congestion kill ..... for the Soviets.Major,

The Soviets would not need 187 divisions. They did it before with 82 divisions against the IJA and the PLA was not that much better than the IJA in the 1970s.

Mihais
03 Oct 13,, 16:51
Sir,that raises the question why the Soviets did not went after the Chinese ?Nixon may have said no,but he was not going to lob nukes at the behest of the red Chinese?

Blademaster
03 Oct 13,, 21:36
Major,

The Soviets would not need 187 divisions. They did it before with 82 divisions against the IJA and the PLA was not that much better than the IJA in the 1970s.

Then how did PLA drive the Americans south in the Korean War? The American army were just as good as the Soviet army.

Officer of Engineers
03 Oct 13,, 21:59
Sir,that raises the question why the Soviets did not went after the Chinese ?Nixon may have said no,but he was not going to lob nukes at the behest of the red Chinese?Nixon did more than that. He hinted that he would provide aide to the Chinese, making a short war long ... and tilting the balance in Europe.


Then how did PLA drive the Americans south in the Korean War? The American army were just as good as the Soviet army.MacArthur.

Blademaster
04 Oct 13,, 01:33
MacArthur.

MacArthur was removed and yet the Americans were not able to drive the Chinese back. Why?

Officer of Engineers
04 Oct 13,, 01:58
They did. The Americans retook Seoul from the Chinese and drove them back across the 38th. Once there, Ridgway did not overstep his authority to try and retake North Korea.

Also, I would like to clarify that this was the late 1960s, early 1970s. The GPCR had taken a toll on PLA professionalism. The Army that did the 1962 Sino-Indo War was purged out of existence. In its place is an army where the only way you can tell the difference between non-commissioned and officers is the number of pockets. NCMs have two and Officers have 4 supposedly to carry the little red book instead of grenades.

The result was the 1979 1st Sino-VN War.

Blademaster
04 Oct 13,, 01:59
They did. The Americans retook Seoul from the Chinese and drove them back across the 38th. Once there, Ridgway did not overstep his authority to try and retake North Korea.

Sorry I was thinking of retaking North Korea.

Officer of Engineers
04 Oct 13,, 02:08
MacArthur overstepped his authority when he attacked North Korea but battle momentum was in his favour. So, no one said anything. However, he ignored the Chinese intervention until it was way too late. Ridgway was not going to repeat that mistake.

anil
06 Nov 13,, 06:03
Pakistan's former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani writes in his book “Magnificent Delusions” about a secret handwritten letter from obama to zardari offering US intervention in kashmir.

'Obama offered to push India on Kashmir for Pak' - Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/obama-offered-to-push-india-on-kashmir-for-pak/article1-1147290.aspx)


In his book, spread over 300 pages, Haqqani writes that in November 2009, Jones travelled to Islamabad to hand deliver a letter written by Obama to Zardari.

Dated November 11, 2009, through the letter Obama offered Pakistan to become America's "long-term strategic" partner.

“The letter even hinted at addressing Pakistan's oft-stated desire for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute," he writes.
in return for ending support to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Taliban

Islamabad rejected the offer

ambidex
06 Nov 13,, 09:26
Pakistan's former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani writes in his book “Magnificent Delusions” about a secret handwritten letter from obama to zardari offering US intervention in kashmir.

'Obama offered to push India on Kashmir for Pak' - Hindustan Times (http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/obama-offered-to-push-india-on-kashmir-for-pak/article1-1147290.aspx)


in return for ending support to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Taliban

Islamabad rejected the offer

Pakistan cries for third party mediation on Kashmir and for Kashmiris day and night. But when it came with condition of ending terrorist organizations, they refused it. I hope Kashmiris are reading it.

BTW, India will never accept TPM.

anil
06 Nov 13,, 09:44
Do you remember president pranab mukherjees outburst just after 2008 mumbai attacks when CWC agreed to wage a war with pakistan?

Dreadnought
06 Nov 13,, 19:08
IMO, I dont think that Obama would have helped fight that war. He may have offered to help conduct negociations to end the conflict but I doubt either fuel it by providing arms or helping fight it. The opposite side to that is that Russia could have helped India. In either case it would have made the conflict even worse for all concerned.

antimony
06 Nov 13,, 19:11
IMO, I dont think that Obama would have helped fight that war. He may have offered to help conduct negociations to end the conflict but I doubt either fuel it by providing arms or helping fight it. The opposite side to that is that Russia could have helped India. In either case it would have made the conflict even worse for all concerned.

I would agree, Pakistan probably wanted some more concrete support, including full backing for Pakistan's position in international forums, than what Obama was ready to give

Blademaster
06 Nov 13,, 19:24
IMO, I dont think that Obama would have helped fight that war. He may have offered to help conduct negociations to end the conflict but I doubt either fuel it by providing arms or helping fight it. The opposite side to that is that Russia could have helped India. In either case it would have made the conflict even worse for all concerned.

He would not want to piss off India who carries greater strategic weight than Pakistan despite its tactical advantages which it has failed to capitalize on.

Double Edge
07 Nov 13,, 01:28
lol, looks like cdude had a good 4 page run here. Can we try an address the OP's article. It was not written by cdude.


Question is what is India? India is a huge subcontinent; it is the focal point of the Indian Ocean, and together with China, one of the two big powers of Asia.

India has to decide first whether it is a continental power, a littoral power or a link between the two. India has to decide what role it wishes to play; nobody can assign India a role in global affairs. Thereafter, India needs to develop relations according to its chosen role. And India needs to initiate relationships depending on where it is going as a regional and a world power.

For instance, India cannot allow the Indian Ocean to be dominated by another power. The commerce between the Far East, Europe and the Middle East is crucial. Hence, either India choses to secure these Indian Ocean routes as a maritime power or else someone else will. If that happens then the third party that secures the Indian Ocean would have a vested interest in containing India. But whether India wants to be the dominant maritime power in the India Ocean is a decision that can only be made by New Delhi.
Other than India the only other major power in the Indian ocean is the USN. I don't see any people in South block losing sleep over this.

As for whether India is littoral power or continental one, i would say its working on the the littoral bit. The tens of billions slated to be spent in the next two decades is towards this goal. Unless the US decides to quit from Asia the picture as it stands currently isn't going away.

Geography is in India's favour.


At the same time, India is also a land power with its northern part sticking into Central Asia. Now India also needs to decide what kind of role it wishes to play as a land power. India either has to make a deal with China on the latter’s terms or else it has to reach out to Russia or other powers to compete with China. There is no other alternative as China is the rising hegemon which is increasingly talking in terms of its historic empire that once ruled most of Asia.
India and Israel are two countries that have civilisations with political character going back thousands of years or as long as China’s. India’s civilisation will not accept China’s civilizational hegemony.

China knows this and that it cannot make a deal with India on its terms. Therefore, it seeks to stifle India and prevent it from rising. The troubles on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) serve to remind India who is the boss. To take on China, India would have to develop an assertive regional posture and challenge China and its regional alliances in Central and West Asia where the Chinese have a lot at stake. Russia is a potential ally but Russia will not do the job for India. India will benefit from co-operation with Russia which has an interest in containing China in West and Central Asia but much less interest in containing China in Leh and Srinagar.
I would submit that 'troubles' along the LAC is because India is slowly asserting itself. We're going to continue to have more Chinese 'protests' into the future. Get used to it.

I don't understand how China can 'stifle India and prevent it from rising'. Why would they want to lose a major market for their goods just over the border.


To repeat what I was saying since the early 1990’s, India must carve for itself a regional strategic role and assertive presence. Once the West needs India strategically and economically, it will pay attention to, and recognise, India’s regional interests and aspirations (such as Afghanistan). Presently, India is passive and reactive —so what’s the point paying attention or doing something for India? In contrast —China is holding the West hostage by its economic leverage and won’t let the West forget for a second, and Pakistan —China’s preeminent protégé and proxy —is threatening to blow-up anything and everything as the region’s madman —so why pick-up fight with the two?
How is China holding the west hostage ?

US investments in China are negligible. China's investment in US T-bonds stands at $3 Trillion.

Who is holding who hostage here.


Q: Where does Afghanistan fit into this equation?

A: India needs to look at Afghanistan in terms of its grand strategic vision. Pakistan is a small country; it is an army with a failed state. One reason why Pakistan survives is because of China’s investments in its nuclear capabilities and its economy both aimed at stifling India. China can constantly divert India’s attention by making Pakistan do something or other like border firing, infiltrating terrorists or carrying out a spectacular terrorist strike.
Pakistan also survives by help from the gulf and the US. The US has given far more to Pakistan than the Chinese in terms of aid. As for weapons, its the same again with the US & China.

Why he underplays the US role here is curious.


India’s fixation on a zero sum game with Pakistan is meaningless. India needs to look at its policies with its western neighbours in terms of its grand strategy and not by being reactive. A lot of Indian activities in Afghanistan are aimed to give Pakistan a hard time. Nothing wrong with this —but strategically it is meaningless.

On the other hand, if India can work out a larger posture in Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, preferably in conjunction with Russia, and also dominate the Indian Ocean till the tip of Africa, then it would also have a say in what is happening to the west of Pakistan.
Let the US get on speaking terms with Iran, the rest of what he says will follow from there. There is a confluence of interests between the US leaving the area and a more moderate regime in Tehran.


The key question is: Will India be stifled by Pakistan, a subcontractor of China, which is the current situation, or will India stifle Pakistan at land and sea because India is the regional power that is stifling China and not just its agent Pakistan?

It is high time that India starts thinking of where it is going as a global and not regional power or just another Third World country. Once it does that then its policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan should be adapted into its lager overall policy.
First let india become a littoral power with the means to back that posture. This will feed into regional aspirations. Global is still some time away. Until India starts to have sizeable interests in other parts of the world there is no need to go global.

Unless this is code for joining the posse here and becoming an ally. That's something India isn't going to do. Partner in a regional security architecture, yes.


Q: Does Washington accept Islamabad’s view that New Delhi is using Afghanistan to de-stabilise Pakistan?

A: Yes. Obama’s Washington is even more hostile to New Delhi than Islamabad. Today, India is using Afghanistan to get at Pakistan. But that is not strategy; it is just another pissing match. It is irrelevant in global terms. From the US point of view, India’s insistence in being in Afghanistan interferes with its aims to hand over Afghanistan to Pakistan and China.

Q: But why would the United States want to do this?

A: Why not? If we make a deal with Pakistan, the Taliban will not shoot at our troops and we can leave peacefully. India, on the other hand, does not play a role as a global power so why should we take it seriously.

Q: A number of US commentators in recent times have suggested that Pakistan’s obsession with Afghanistan can be resolved if the Kashmir issue is sorted out once and for all with India. Do you believe that a Kashmir “solution” will end Pakistan’s preoccupation with Afghanistan?

A: Obama’s Washington wants Kashmir resolved in Pakistan’s favour —Afghanistan or no Afghanistan.
India is so passive that the United States feels it can pressure India to make concessions in Kashmir so that the US can get a better deal with Pakistan. Kashmir should not be on the menu but it is. Large swathes of Siberian territory owned by Russia are claimed by China but the United States never dares to tell Russia to cede any territory to China so that the US gets a better economic deal with China. But the state department does think that India can be pressured to compromise on Kashmir and thereby secure a better deal for Washington with the Pakistanis. Such a thing would be inconceivable if India was a world power.

When Pakistani terrorists attacked the India parliament, the United States told India that it dare not attack Pakistan. India has brought this upon itself by being passive. It is fighting for crumbs in Afghanistan.

Q: Why has the US been reluctant to accept a greater Indian role in Afghanistan?

A: We want China (that can help with Iran) and its proxy Pakistan.

Q: Is the view that Washington is prepared to cut a deal with Pakistan and the Quetta Shura at any cost credible?

A: Yes.

Q: Despite being aware that Pakistan has directly or indirectly aided the insurgency in Afghanistan, Washington seems to be going out of its way to cede control of south and eastern Afghanistan to Pakistan. What precisely is the strategic thinking behind these moves? And do you believe that such a move will stabilise Afghanistan and Pakistan?

A: This is what Pakistan wants and this is what will make China happy.

Q: Do you believe that Washington will pull out all troops from Afghanistan by 2014 if the Bilateral Security Agreement with Kabul is not signed within the next few months?

A: Obama wants Zero Troops. He’ll withdraw if he can whatever the excuse.

Q: Would a small contingent of about 10,000 US troops and air force elements be able to stabilise Afghanistan with the help of the Afghan security forces post 2014?

A: Well over 1,00,000 troops failed. So why should 10,000 have any impact? If any soldier remains —it will be a symbolic gesture.

Q: The Pakistan government despite promising all help to President Karzai to re-start the peace process have decided not to release pro-talk Taliban leaders such as Mullah Baradar. They have released a total of about 26 low level Taliban and claim they have done their bit to facilitate talks. Do you believe that the Pakistani establishment will allow direct talks between the Taliban and the Kabul regime?

A: Karzai is a nobody that everybody—including Obama’s Washington —knows by now. Who cares what Karzai was told or promised? Pakistan (the ISI) is building a regional network based on tribal and “Taliban” chiefs that will control most of Afghanistan. The ISI already does so for all intent and purpose.

Q: India has helped Afghanistan with a number of developmental projects but has publicly espoused a “keep our heads down” policy in Afghanistan. Do you think this policy has worked?

A: No. The Afghans are not masters of their own destiny. India’s efforts failed to convince the US that it has a legitimate role in Afghanistan. It has been a near total waste.
This bit is all predicated on things going bad in Afghanistan post pullout. If that happens, there is going to be a well funded anti-taliban coalition causing a never ending insurgency over there. This will create more headaches for the Paks and further destabilise the region.

But wait a minute, isn't this what has already happened. For what did the US spend a decade only to have it descend back into the 90s again.

He says the Afghans aren't masters over their future. Let's see how the election in 2014 works out.

Karzai will be a nobody at the next election because he said he won't be running.