India's Foreign policy

India, Mozambique sign bilateral security co-operation pact:)
New Delhi: India and Mozambique have signed a bilateral security co-operation agreement as part of efforts to strengthen ties.

The pact was signed by Minister of State for Home Mullappally Ramachandran and Mozambique Minister of Interior Jose Mandra at Maputo yesterday.

Earlier, Ramachandran called on the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique, Henrique Banze.

The two leaders also discussed cooperation between the two countries and ways to develop their relations further in various fields for mutual benefit of the two countries.

The Minister also interacted with the Indian diaspora in Mozambique at a reception hosted by the High Commissioner of India to Mozambique Ashok K Amrohi.

There are about 25,000 people of Indian origin who have been living in Mozambique for generations.

Ramachandran is on a three-day visit to Mozambique.

India tries to counter China influence in east africa. India also operates a monitoring station in northern Madagascar.

These 2 countries are higly undeveloped and Madagascar also suffers of constant army mutinies and political crisis.

GarryB wrote:I am sure with cooperation they can improve the situation in both countries.

This is a good thing.

Τhey will need economic assistance and tecnhical knowledge transfer also, besides weapons

Ayni is the much-spoken word in Indo-Russian strategic engagement. The Ayni air base in Tajikistan happens to be India’s first and only foreign military base. And yet, this base is not fully operational for the simple reason that an air base cannot be operational without deployment of fighter aircraft, something that is unlikely to happen without Russia’s green signal. India’s Ayni dream is Russia-locked.

The issue will inevitably figure during the highest Indo-Russian engagement when Russian President Vladimir Putin holds talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It is another matter that the issue is unlikely to find a mention in the publicised talking points between the two sides, like it has seldom been.

Ayni is going to be among the high points of discussions between India and Russia at their 13th annual summit in New Delhi in December. India has spent $70 million between 2002 and 2010 to renovate the Ayni base. India has extended the Ayni runway to 3,200 metres and installed state-of-the-art navigational and air defence equipment there. And yet, India has not been able to make Ayni truly a military base that fits to the classic definition of an air base.

All these years the Indians have run into the Russian wall as Moscow has been unrelenting in its stand that it doesn’t want foreign powers to deploy fighter aircraft in its backyard and a former territory. The Russians have thus far steadfastly refused to grant this favour to its age-old strategic partner – India.

source

Code:

http://indrus.in/articles/2012/10/26/indias_ayni_military_base_in_tajikistan_is_russia-locked_18661.html

Why strategic purpose does this airbase serve to India ?

Can't say I've followed the issue very closely.

TR1 wrote:Why strategic purpose does this airbase serve to India ?

Can't say I've followed the issue very closely.

it is very close to pok

ricky123 wrote:

TR1 wrote:Why strategic purpose does this airbase serve to India ?

Can't say I've followed the issue very closely.

it is very close to pok

But they won't be allowed to go across the border or launch anything into Pakistani airspace will they?

Honestly I wish Russia itself wasn't trying to keep its troops in these nations...we end up paying for their security. Cool deal :/

it is only 16kms away from pok i think. and it also allows india to keep any eye on afghanistan .. so this base is very important .

America needs India in Asia and it's not the other way round . And India has refused to sign up to America's China containment policy in a way Australia has . India's relation with Russia are strategic in nature while that with the US it's clearly an economic relation .

India intends to develop a coalition to "contain" China's military rise . But that coalition will ONLY contain Asian countries like South Korea , Japan , Philippines , Vietnam and Indonesia .

Sujoy wrote:
America needs India in Asia and it's not the other way round . And India has refused to sign up to America's China containment policy in a way Australia has . India's relation with Russia are strategic in nature while that with the US it's clearly an economic relation .

Australia is an Anglo country which naturally supports America for cultural reasons primarily. The politicians here still have no real policy to deal with the rise of China. They stick to the status quo position because they don't really have any answers and are sticking their heads in the sand (I think they're terrified of the coming change). The BIG contradiction is that politically and militarily they're tied to the US but economically speaking Australia already is more or less tied to the fortunes of the China's economy. Even a minor slow down in China has an immediate effect on the Aussie economy and finances. That's a fact that cannot be ignored no matter the rhetoric on great Aussie-US alliances and so on. Eventually (I think sooner rather than later) this contradiction will force itself in the open.

India intends to develop a coalition to "contain" China's military rise . But that coalition will ONLY contain Asian countries like South Korea , Japan , Philippines , Vietnam and Indonesia

That basically sounds like the US policy to me. The "Äsian only" is probably for domestic consumption. For example, S. Korea and Japan cannot make any significant foreign policy and military moves on their own without US approval.

Cyberspec wrote:
Australia is an Anglo country which naturally supports America for cultural reasons primarily. The politicians here still have no real policy to deal with the rise of China. They stick to the status quo position because they don't really have any answers and are sticking their heads in the sand (I think they're terrified of the coming change). The BIG contradiction is that politically and militarily they're tied to the US but economically speaking Australia already is more or less tied to the fortunes of the China's economy. Even a minor slow down in China has an immediate effect on the Aussie economy and finances. That's a fact that cannot be ignored no matter the rhetoric on great Aussie-US alliances and so on. Eventually (I think sooner rather than later) this contradiction will force itself in the open.

Australians like to think of themselves as rational and practical people who have thrived in their rugged, unforgiving environment, but their strategic thinking – if one could call it that – is shockingly impractical, venturing into the realm of fantasy. The current flavour of the season is the so-called Beowulf Option. In “Learning to Walk Amongst Giants: The New Defence White Paper”, Australian Government advisor Ross Babbage has set out that Australia needs the military strength to “rip an arm off any major Asian power that sought to attack Australia”.( read China) . There is nothing imaginative about Australia's military & foreign policy . It's basically a second hand US document . What Australians need to be reminded of is that it's Chinese imports from Western Australia that has prevented Australia from going into recession. If China starts to look for alternative importers like Brazil, India , Africa etc Australia's lucky streak could end very, very quickly.

Cyberspec wrote:That basically sounds like the US policy to me. The "Äsian only" is probably for domestic consumption. For example, S. Korea and Japan cannot make any significant foreign policy and military moves on their own without US approval.

ASEAN too was formed with the intention of containing China and yet it has a robust trade relation with China. India would not like to enter into an alliance with the US which is anti China . India stands to loose greatly . Unlike Australia , India realizes that China is it's biggest trading partner. In the last 50 years not a single shot has been fired across the Indo China border. Both sides try their utmost in maintaining this status quo. India's alliance with countries in South East Asia and East Asia is designed to remind China that India does have an answer to China's String of Pearls strategy . I suspect to lend some credence to this informal alliance India will soon import military hardware from South Korea & Japan and will also export military hardware to Vietnam and Phillipines. Indo US relations are half hearted and neither side trusts the other :

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/14/why_india_is_so_half_hearted_about_the_us_rebalance_towards_asia

China's new leadership which is going to take over control from tomorrow has drafted a "Look West Policy" ( west of CHina) and India is the lynchpin in this strategy.

In the last 50 years not a single shot has been fired across the Indo China border.

that is not true there were no war but there is always high tension and right now it is the most millitarised region in the world ...

ricky123 wrote:
that is not true there were no war but there is always high tension

Give me an example after 1962 when hostilities broke out between India & China ? China did not interfere in 1965 , 1971 and 1999 when India & Pakistan went to war. So much so that unable to bear such long lasting peace now "Aliens" have decided to interfere ( or so we are told )

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-china-ufos-20121107,0,5138335.story

ricky123 wrote:
and right now it is the most millitarised region in the world ...

Certainly not since North Korea & South Korea still exist as does Af Pak .

India also reported a series of skirmishes after the 1962 war, which were never confirmed by China. One report provided by India shows that in late 1967, there were two skirmishes between Indian and Chinese forces in Sikkim. The first one was dubbed the "Nathu La incident", and the other the "Chola incident".

i think there were more but i cant find the source

ricky123 wrote:

India also reported a series of skirmishes after the 1962 war, which were never confirmed by China. One report provided by India shows that in late 1967, there were two skirmishes between Indian and Chinese forces in Sikkim. The first one was dubbed the "Nathu La incident", and the other the "Chola incident".

i think there were more but i cant find the source

For every one such "skirmish" that India had with China there are a few hundreds India had with Bangladesh , Nepal and SriLanka . That does not mean that the border is always tense. There is a mechanism in place between India and China to deal with such incidents and so far they have worked like textbook.

I think India will have to join a security organisation like CSTO to have any military or intelligence aircraft deployed on Russias backyard now be it to just monitor Afghanistan ( which US may not like it ) or Pakistan.

That would open the gates to other nations wanting such a previlage , so likely this place wont see any military aircraft deployed from India but some intelligence cooperation.

Real game is going to start when US+NATO leaves Afghanistan and Karzai Govt is going to get its a$$ kicked. India doesn't need airbase in Central Asia, we should not get involved in Central Asian politics. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it will always be better to do a Naval blockade then have 12 fighters from North and keep spending money on oversees airbase, even in peacetime. And India is doing good in Afghanistan anyway, with soft power only. We should not play the game in Afghanistan according to Pakistan rules. They will win as they have Islam card. Rather have friendly relations with Afghan people on ground level and not pick sides between various ethnicities in Afghanistan. Don't make stupid movies about Afghanistan like Kabul Express.

As an Indian and with greate remorse and honesty I say that India would never ever going to do against Pakistan , so keeping bases near Pakistan is useless.

We could have attacked Pakistan when their terrorist attacked Indian Parliament , can you imagine if such an attack took place on US Senate or Russsian Parliament from a known source what would they have done ?

Even after 26/11 we did nothing just begging pakistan to give us Hafiz Sayeed or other terrorist that has been traced to pakistan by even US and India and every one knows still nothing.

Its mearly a hog wash trying to mislead indian public , Fact is that India is shit scared to fight any war with Pakistan because the Political Class is shit scared what will happen to them so they thing its better to take hits and carry on because Indian public is getting affected and not political class as they are safe with all security and status with Tax Payers money and ordinary Indians die

^^^^ I don't care about Parliament attack honestly speaking. Politicians make a big issue when their house gets attacked. That's why i am against any Indian military involvement in central Asia and Afghanistan because we don't have the leaders who can handle these type of politics. neither do Indian citizens have will to do anything like this. indian population has a point as Pakistan is not their biggest problem of ordinary Indian. Govt. (all levels) Corruption, poverty and slow judiciary is. If you want to do anything in India, its impossible to do without paying bribe to some corrupt official, fighting court battles is ridiculously slow that one would rather reach a compromise even if it means overall loss. But new generation is more impatient and India will change considerably in next 20 years IMO.

Just keep navy strong because if a war happens with Pak, naval blockade will be essential, if s**t hits the fan, forcing them to surrender or use nuke(bad result for everybody, but preventable).

India -Russ partnership will suffer under the new Government.

The first direct casualty is FGFA project.

This project will be axed in favour of U.S F-35 .

The rbi (central bank) has already given an approval of 100 billion usd in buying
F-35, C-17, P8I of the shelf from U.S .

This will allow the new government to strengthen Indo U.S partnership and also
move away from multi-vector policy of the previous government.

The other major in-pipeline projects(carefully and painfully initiated by the previous government)  
are also to be axed like MEGA (pantsir, tor-m2 , Krivak class , submarines,new T-90 MS deals and so on).

The rafale deal might go on but that is another topic. IAF will have to look at rafale from point of view
of F-35 deployment scenarios.
Well I think this change of policy will take time.It will 2-3 years before finances can be allocated for this huge
buying spree from the U.S.

This is the sad reality but we have to face it for what it is worth.   

According to who?

I am not saying that present Indian Gov will be anti-russian.
It will be pro-U.S.
We will wait and see ,cant comment on it.

The news that was given to me was by general opinion.

This is a policy.  This is not news .
This is a perception that present Gov is pro-U.S.

Am taking my hands off this sensitive subject.
And stating that am not an expert.  

The BJP has already stated that there will be no change in foreign policy except maybe with relation to Pakistan .

http://thedailynewnation.com/news/12998/no-major-change-in-foreign-policy-modis-aide.html

We are already seeing the dynamics in our neighbourhood.

I have already written before the consequences of our political changes.

I am afraid that my concerns are becoming true that this Government will become the supporter/Largest buyer of U.S
Arms.

With this government we are headed towards a Polish scenario in the worst case .

As of course , I may be wrong also.. but right now.. it looks ominous..