Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

India’s achievements in 2005 Pak View

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • India’s achievements in 2005 Pak View

    India’s achievements in 2005


    By Tariq Fatemi

    THE well-known American scholar on South Asia, Professor Stephen Cohen, in his definitive study on India published in 1996, had described the country as an “emerging power”. This appellation had raised some eyebrows, for while India had been doing well, many analysts were not sure whether, at that point in time, it could be considered as an emerging global power. Now, there are no such doubts.

    The year ending has been a successful one for India. It is now a recognized player on the world stage, influential both in the realm of politics as well as in global trade deliberations. The graph started going up earlier, when after the June 2004 general elections, western observers were deeply impressed by the quiet dignity with which Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee acknowledged the popular will, and even before the election commission had announced the results, decided to tender his resignation. This was democracy at its best.

    Thereafter, the Congress-led coalition government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, succeeded in staving off pressure from its left-oriented coalition partners, particularly regarding economic liberalization policies. Resultantly, the Indian economy has continued to grow at nearly eight per cent per year.

    But it is in the field of foreign policy that the year under review has been a remarkable one for India. Its stable polity and investor-friendly policies, coupled with a strong leadership, have resulted in a conscious effort by the world’s major powers to woo India, not only to take advantage of its increasingly attractive economic opportunities, but also to ensure that its voice and vote remain on their side.

    India’s relations with the US have registered visible progress. The year began with the US and India signing an agreement in January, to facilitate greater trade and economic cooperation between them. Then, after months of intense diplomatic negotiations, India and the US signed a 10-year defence arrangement in June 2005. It will be recalled that because of the dynamics of Cold War politics, India’s security planners had either opted for the domestic production of defence weapons or depended on the former Soviet Union for these.

    But Indian force requirements prompted an increase in defence ties with Washington. The latter offered top of the line systems such as the F-18 Super Hornets along with co-production possibilities, and also sold sophisticated Firefinder radar systems, while approving the sale of Israeli-made Phalcon airborne warning systems, making India one of the few countries to have this capability.

    While the world was still in the midst of appreciating the scope and scale of this agreement, Prime Minister Singh’s visit to Washington on July 18 resulted in another agreement that both sides claimed would raise bilateral ties to an unprecedented level and accord it a strategic dimension with global reach. While political pundits differ on the details, there is near unanimity regarding the driving motivation of the two countries in reaching this agreement. If approved by the Congress and endorsed by other nuclear powers, it would remove the ban on civilian nuclear technology sales to Delhi. India could then obtain nuclear fuel and nuclear components from the US and other countries, though it would have to allow international inspections and agree to safeguards on its civilian nuclear facilities.

    The agreement, therefore, is significant as India is closer to gaining near-formal acceptance as a nuclear weapons state. Incidentally, these actions were in line with the recommendations of the influential think tank Carnegie Endowment that the administration strengthen India to prevent Chinese domination of the region, and to this end, allow the sale of dual-use technology, including nuclear equipment to India, while abandoning Washington’s historic quest to maintain a military balance between India and Pakistan.

    Although Singh did not receive everything he wanted, including Washington’s public support for its bid for a permanent Security Council seat, Bush’s agreement to supply nuclear fuel and technology was a historic breakthrough in US-India relations and confirmation of Delhi’s emergence as a major world power. Earlier, the CIA had described India as the most important “swing state” in the international system and a country that could tilt the balance between war and peace.

    Under-Secretary Nicholas Burns, in a policy statement, declared that the US “looks upon India as a natural partner” that is likely to be “a rising global power”, which will “require substantially greater US attention” in the coming years. Washington’s message is that it now considers India its closest ally in this part of the world.

    Admittedly, India may find aspects of the agreements irksome as they may impinge on New Delhi’s freedom of action. After all, American scholars have admitted that the administration’s emphasis is on building up India as “a potential hedge against a rising China”. China poses no threat to the US either today or in the near future, and yet is portrayed as one. This is because even if China is not a threat today, it could, at some point in time, become a rival to the US, in economic and military terms and is likely to challenge the US in its quest for the world’s natural resources. As China rises like a colossus on the world stage, the US would like to see a stronger India that can keep the Chinese off balance. This is how the US used China to balance the Soviet Union in the ‘70s and the ‘80s.

    The Chinese have reacted to these developments with their usual cool detachment, neither ignoring nor panicking at the emergence of the Washington-New Delhi axis. Instead, Beijing has chosen to counter this development by strengthening its own relations with its southern neighbour by seeking to remove irritants in relations with India, while identifying new areas of economic cooperation. China no longer considers India a rival, but a competitor, with which it seeks meaningful political dialogue and mutually advantageous economic collaboration.

    In fact, the Chinese are the ones who have taken the initiative to focus on the commonality of interests and views with India, rather than on their differences. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao surprised the Indians during his official visit to India in April, when he referred to Sino-Indian relations as “strategic”.

    He also drew attention to the far-reaching benefits that could accrue to both countries from a close collaboration between their IT firms, pointing to the global impact of mating “Chinese hardware with Indian software”. Recently, China joined with India to purchase major stakes in Syrian oil fields, the first time the two Asian rivals in the race for global energy resources, have worked in tandem.

    As India’s traditional friend and its primary benefactor over decades, Russia could not countenance being left behind in the race to curry favour, nor could President Vladimir Putin allow a friend in whom his country had invested so much time, energy and money, to drift apart. During Singh’s visit to Moscow earlier this month, Putin repeatedly referred to the “strategic relationship between the two countries”. He agreed to maintain trade benefits that New Delhi had been enjoying for years and also recognized India’s need for advanced weapons at the usual favourable terms.

    The European Union remains conscious of the need to establish long-term, comprehensive relations with New Delhi. It, therefore, not only maintained its summit level dialogue with the Indian leadership, but chose to enter into a wide-ranging action plan, which it calls a “strategic partnership”. It also emphasizes that “there are few major countries in the world with whom the EU has more in common in terms of fundamental values” than India, adding that Delhi is “a major force for stability in South Asia and beyond”.

    What will be India’s attitude to US wishes in the region? India is a huge country, with enormous resources and a certain sense of pride as one of the world’s ancient civilizations. This will inhibit any inclination to act at the behest of the US. But when India and the US agree to “collaborate in limited international operations, when in their national interest”, it is time for other states, especially India’s neighbours, to take serious note.

    In any case, there is considerable political space between that of a proxy state and one working in close concert to promote those interests that are to their mutual advantage (India’s vote on Iran at the IAEA is a pointer of things to come). If the US wishes to promote India as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean littoral and in South Asia, which Delhi, in any case, regards as its sphere of influence, there is no reason why India should shy away from it. Of course, as regards relations with Beijing, India will do nothing to arouse Chinese hostility while quietly encouraging Washington’s fears and misgivings about China.

    Pakistan is not only a neighbour of both China and India, but in the very vortex that is likely to emerge because of the increasingly complex relationships developing in the region. It is also not unlikely that both the US and India will try to take advantage of their emerging entente to seek unfair advantages from Pakistan. This could be in the field of commercial or political relations. It is, therefore, incumbent on our leaders not only to resist such prospects, but to strengthen our linkages with all major power centres, so that our concerns do not disappear from the radar screens in these capitals.

    But most importantly, we must refrain from any action that could even remotely hurt our relations with China. Time and events have proven the value and worth of our ties to Beijing.

    The writer is a former ambassador.
    http://www.pakistanpapers.com/
    The article does talk about the success and more so in the fields that are worrisome to Pakistan.

    It is rather unfortnate that Pakistan seems to remain in the shadow of China for comfort!

    While there is without doubt that Pakistan has to have security through alignments and alliances, but it should be on even and equal keel.

    The last paragraph is sad since it is almost kowtowing to China and practically thanking God or Allah (if you wish) that China lurks as the saviour of Pakistan.

    To my mind, Pakistan is not that bereft of resources, manpower, will or finances or administrative acumen as to not carve her rightful place amongst the comity of nations without having to bank on some other country's benign blessings!

    It is the powerlust of its politicians and its military that drags down Pakistan and makes it appear a client state for survival or even being recognised as a Nation!

    Very unfortunate.
    Last edited by Ray; 29 Dec 05,, 06:34.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

  • #2
    The only achievements acc to article for India is nuclear & defence, come on we are growing at 8 % who gonna count that? We got record FDI, record exports etc. Country & its ppl paranoid by defence related news.
    Last edited by indianguy4u; 29 Dec 05,, 14:45.
    Hala Madrid!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ray

      To my mind, Pakistan is not that bereft of resources, manpower, will or finances or administrative acumen as to not carve her rightful place amongst the comity of nations without having to bank on some other country's benign blessings!

      It is the powerlust of its politicians and its military that drags down Pakistan and makes it appear a client state for survival or even being recognised as a Nation!

      Very unfortunate.
      Sir,
      I could'nt have said it better. The Pakistanis must bring in democracy and keep the army at bay (to whatever extent feasible). The fundamentalists should be restricted in their mosques or seminaries, and businessmen and people should be allowed to interact with India and Indians.
      Their economic salvation is not unachivable.

      Cheers!...on the rocks!!

      Comment

      Working...
      X