Is India Emerging as France of Asia?

[Sourav]

Is India Emerging as France of Asia?

Warming Sino-Indian relationship tells the US that India is not an unconditional ally

Diplomats and analysts will be watching closely as Chinese President Hu Jintao visits India this week, the first by a Chinese head of state to India in a decade. Few capitals have as much interest in the outcome as Washington. However, those in the US who see India simply as a hedge against China will likely be disappointed—for the two Asian giants have also taken giant strides toward better ties. The US may be better off viewing India as an ally like France—one which shares many values with Americans, but pursues its own course.

This week’s India visit will be a reminder of an important fact to those who focus exclusively on the US-India relationship as an alliance of democracies with shared values and ever closer economic and cultural ties: India and China are enjoying a honeymoon of their own. Long forgotten are the lows of 1998, when then Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes famously called China the country’s “number one threat” and accused it of encircling India with its missiles, navy, and allies Pakistan and Myanmar. For its part, China has modulated its position on Kashmir. Ongoing border talks have led to Chinese recognition of the Himalayan state of Sikkim, absorbed into India in 1975, as part of India—although differences continue on Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state which China claims. But overall the language describing this relationship has taken a 180-degree turn. After Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s 2005 visit to India, the two countries heralded a “strategic and cooperative partnership.”

Underscoring this change is a new robustness in economic ties. As recently as 2001, two-way trade between India and China was a paltry $3.6 billion, but it nearly doubled in 2004, rising 79 percent from the previous year to $13.6 billion dollars. By 2005 the figure reached $18.7 billion, and is expected to top $20 billion in 2006. The India-China Joint Study Group of Comprehensive Trade and Economic Cooperation predicts enormous growth potential because each country’s respective share of the other’s imports is still so small—both under 5 percent. And both countries anticipate growth in services trade, the sector in which their bilateral trade has grown faster than the sector has in each country. While some Indian commentators raise concerns about Chinese economic influence--underscored by the recent disqualification of Chinese firms from a mobile tender—this remains a mere blip overridden by economic pragmatism. Today’s talks, for example, between Hu Jintao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh produced a commitment to double trade from current levels to $40 billion by 2010.

In the past year, India and China have forged a new alliance in the energy sector—one in which both India and China require security for exponentially growing domestic demands. Onetime rivals for control of fields in Angola, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Ecuador, India and China agreed in January 2006 to cooperate on overseas acquisitions. The agreement grew out of their co-ownership of a Sudanese field and their cooperative bid for fields in Syria. These joint pursuits are knitting together the interests of Asian state-owned oil and gas behemoths ONGC in India, and CNPC and CNOOC in China. With the rapid growth of these economic ties in areas critical to both countries’ development, the India-China relationship has set off on a completely new path. It is this new course that the US, concerned about a worldwide scramble for energy resources, would be watching carefully.

At the same time, India and the US are drawing unmistakably closer - from joint military exercises to an American passion for yoga. A US that once sanctioned India for its nuclear tests now proposes close cooperation on civil nuclear energy. An India that famously evicted Coca-Cola and IBM in the 1970s has become a magnet for companies like GE and Microsoft.

This growing Indo-US warmth marks a complete reversal of past decades. Nominally nonaligned India had a quasi-alliance relationship with the Soviet Union. The US, of course, found a compliant partner against Soviet Communism in Pakistan. India and the US clashed on matters ranging from nonproliferation to human rights to the Nixon administration’s tilt toward Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh war. With India’s economy among the most autarkic in Asia, the economic relationship was equally frigid.

However, following India’s nuclear tests in 1998, US President Bill Clinton moved to craft a closer US-India relationship, highlighted by a successful presidential visit in 2000. The Bush administration has taken the relationship further. The president’s fascination with the scale and diversity of India’s democracy is well known. A willingness to rethink international treaties—including those relating to nonproliferation—has also helped clear the way for unprecedented cooperation. India’s opening of its economy has reinforced these trends. The scorching growth of India’s software and IT-enabled services sector has given it a significant role in global business. From a $150 million industry in the early 1990s, the sector now stands to exceed $36 billion in revenues in 2006, two-thirds from exports. India’s knowledge work has linked the country to American business in vital ways. In 2006 it became the fastest growing mobile phone market in the world, and its automobile sector is one of the fastest growing, too.

Perhaps the driving force in the new US-India relationship has been a shift in the perception of China in Washington, its metamorphosis from a strategic partner to a strategic rival. Not surprisingly, the new Indo-US strategic partnership, in particular the civil nuclear deal, has energized debate in the United States about what the nation will “get” in return.

The question becomes more acute when seen against the blossoming China-India economic relationship emerging over the last five years. Of course, a strong trade relationship may not indicate full agreement on security issues—the US-China relationship an apt example—but the great changes taking place within Asia as its two largest powers grow faster, and come closer together, mean that nothing can be assumed. And India’s historic wariness of US foreign policy and deep differences on Pakistan remain. Indeed, the fact that even in a phase of warming ties, the US still cannot satisfy Indian goals on Pakistan keeps at least one major roadblock in place. India-China cooperation on energy security points to others: their joint bid for Syrian fields, for example, was not welcomed in Washington. But most importantly, the emergence of a cooperative aspect to a once purely competitive relationship between the two Asian giants creates new incentives for India. So as India and the US overcome years of estrangement to craft a strategic partnership, it’s worth asking what that partnership will really look like. At the moment a deep alliance, with an extensive convergence of security interests similar to US ties with Japan and South Korea, appears unlikely.

In the context of the many rapid changes taking place in Asia, Americans should step back to recognize that a good US-India relationship will not be one where India complies with every US policy goal. Rather, the tango between Washington and New Delhi will resemble that of another problematic ally, France, a relationship of robust cooperation marked by disagreements and ideological bickering. Understanding, and planning for this kind of relationship will create expectations that can be met successfully.

Alyssa Ayres, the author of this article, is deputy director of the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania and managing editor of the journal India Review. She will be an International Affairs Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations in 2007.
_________________
Request | Rules
Our photos | My photos

[MarieAntoinette23]

I have been saying all along that India may be on cordial terms with America but doesn’t like or trust the country. I live in America and India is a joke here. It makes me wanna move there or to France where my mom's sister lives. I just can't stand the way people treat the basic values in Indian culture such as vegetarianism and yoga. I know yoga isn't one subject; it is a system of various techniques with each possessing its own goals. In general, they don't see Raja Yoga, Jhana Yoga, Karma Yoga, etc. It's about Hatha Yoga and occasionally Kundalini Yoga. Even with vegetarianism there is a widespread view that it's new and weird. It comes from India!

Also, the presidential administration, which is headed by President George W. Bush, thinks that India is some gentle country that doesn't practice the strategy of forming allies and maintaining them. I know for a fact that India is very close to Iran, japan, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, China, France, Germany and Italy. There’s a constant prodding of Iran by our government who believes the nuclear program poses a dangerous threat. They even went as far as to ask India to not continue its nuclear-weapon projects with Iran. The deputy of security told the bush administration to mind their own business. In conclusion, if America chooses to bother Iran, then it'll have to deal with India and its other allies who are just as powerful.
_________________
"Queen Marie Antoinette is mispercieved by people all over the world. What they don't know is that she was a compassionate person who began to donate money to charities after having her first child."

[Sourav]

Friend, India is probably a joke, but I will not accuse the americans for that. I do believe that we need to do a lot of homework here, to improve our image across the globe, and to begin with we should stop making ourselves a joke.

How many americans we know who will joke at another american for speaking in "pure" english? Or, how many french we know who will joke at anther french for speaking in "pure" french? An american speaking in "pure" english or a french speaking in "pure" french will be highly regarded by their respective compatriots.

Coming back to India, how many Indians we know who won't joke at another Indian for speaking in "pure" hindi? For people to respect us, I believe we must start respecting ourselves, and our culture first. So long we will keep on ridiculing ourselves, I won't be surprised if others ridicules us as well. We need better self-esteem, and we need to held our cultural values high, I feel.

As it is now, it's us who are sending this message to them, that your language and your culture is better than ours, and if that's the case, why shouldn't they joke at our culture.

People who know me personally, know that I take special care to speak in "pure" hindi even if that is not my mother tongue. Let's start respecting ourselves first friend, let's start respecting our cultures, and our values, and we will see soon the world will start respecting us as well.

--------------------------------

Yes, France is a friend, Russia is a friend as well. But are you sure China is a friend of India? For the moment, after feeding Pakistan with missiles and nuclear bombs, China is giving India specific missiles to Bangladesh. They have also put radars in the bay of Bengal to check Indian activities. What next? A nuclear Bangladesh? India specific missiles in Nepal and Myanmar?

Or, must we go against NATO to support Iran? Where is our greater stake? A nuclear Iran is probably not a threat to India, or I may regard the right of Iranians to protect themselves, but we must also think of our friends, I think. A nuclear Iran can be a threat to Israel, who openly states to wipe out Israel, and Israel "is" a friend of India, and there are many Indians who are based in Israel.

Besides, culturally we are much closer to europe and america compared to Iran. The NATO countries believe in democracy as we do, and they do not chop off a hand of someone, or they don't stone a woman to death in a stadium, like Iran. With such cultural differences, can Iran be our friend? Personally I will not go against NATO to support Iran.

What do you think?
_________________
Request | Rules
Our photos | My photos

[MarieAntoinette23]

I've always felt that France and India had a solid and close relationship compared to what America is seeking. India has been refusing to sign important deals with the USA since George W. Bush became president back in 2001. Part of the reason is they were smart enough to realize how he may act since his father was president as well. France is a beautiful country and the history is something I want to learn more about. If you don't already know, there was the French East India Company that was becoming very powerful yet couldn't manage its finances and went bankrupt. Nonetheless, the relationship continued on in other areas.

It is true India is a "joke" in the eyes of many Americans (including Indians). The sad part is the parents are not trying hard enough to instill cultural values.Hhave you ever heard of the term, ABCD? It stands for American Born Confused Desi and can be applied to any individual that prefers American culture over that of its parents. I wouldn't want to adhere to my country's principles if someone paid me a million bucks! India is where I get my beliefs and culture from; I'm proud of it! People ask questions instead of just assuming because my choices don't reflect theirs. I want to support my parents when they retiree, non-indians don't think about that.

China and India are on cordial terms but don't trust eachother well enough to cooperate. Part of the reason is China is siding with America and has attacked India a few times in the past (the Sino-Indian war and the Sino-Punjabi war). Will they become the world's greatest superpower? Not really. India's relationship to Russia, France, Japan and Germany gives it the foremost global superpower status. America wants to be treated the same yet it will never happen even if presidential candidate Barrack Obama (a democrat) is elected.

[Indian]

but i thought and heard that yoga, in all its forms, is respected in USA. ppl r getting crazier for yoga. and US govt was so worried that they feared another osho like revolution in their society by baba ramdev and hence he was discouraged from visiting US. and then, in a hush hush manner, US patented yoga as their property since this ancient art of india was never 'patented'.
so if an indian company wants to export yoga mats, cure or course, US can interferre technically.

regarding india china, one thing has to b remembered that china is always unpredictable. we have had Confidence building measures (CBM) but there r larger issues left like aksai chin and arunachal. and why do u think china is constructing gwadar port in balochistan?
where r naxalites drawing their inspiration? what happened during NSG meet to give india a waiver?

but, india is no longer a thing which can b supressed by china. they have to adopt a reconcilliatory approach with india rather than a conflicting approach. china cant afford a hostile india. is that why during kargil 1999, china offered no support, military or diplomatic, to pak? (ha ha ha pak got ditched again and falling flat on day dreaming expectations).

[MarieAntoinette23]

Wow! I don’t know what resources you turn to for the news but India and china had its problems in the past and overcame them. The Sino-Indian war that occurred in the 19th century and the mid 20th century had to do with border issues. China sort of lost its way in terms of maintaining strong relationships with nearby countries after the Maoist revolution. However, today there is so much appreciation and respect for eachother that japan is kind of lagging behind. Before the new millennium japan and India were the strongest alliance in Asia, then china took over the position by signing lots of project deals in the realms of economics, military, education, etc. with India’s government.

In America, yoga is called “yoga”. In India the term is a generalization (not in a negative sense) for a system of eight branches of yoga philosophy. Americans are only familiar with Hatha Yoga and Kundalini Yoga. The fallacy in introducing yoga to the west is altering it to suit the interests of the majority. People are not gonna want to sit and read texts in class before doing some positions. Each yoga form has a combination of all the others because it takes reading, meditation, stretches, alignment of the chakras, proper dieting, etc. to obtain any kind of knowledge. Granted, some people are interested in becoming powerful so turn to Kundalini yoga. Americans are easily seduced by foreign ideas, which is why I can’t help but laugh at them. They’ll study yoga and then say, “I wanna go to india”. When arriving on Indian soil there will be a moment of disgust towards the culture. It is this feeling that will lead to a decision to go back home. Hippies are the worst American societal group in that they think they understand Hinduism but actually don’t.

[Sourav]

Actually we have two things we are discussing here: India's internal security vis-à-vis it's immediate neighborhood, and the image of India in the western world, right?

For India's immediate neighborhood, for our western neighbor Pakistan, I read a few documents that the original aim of Pakistan was to make a country comprising Punjab, Afgania, Kashmir, Indus, Sindh. There from came the name Pakistan. It could very well be Akpistan or Kapistan, depending on how the then Pakistani leadership were giving importance to those regions.

Punjab was the center of their idea (even today Punjab is the center of activities in Pakistan). So, Pakistan started with a P. Now they didn't got Punjab entirely during the formation of that country, neither they got Kashmir, and neither Afghania. They got Sindh and they got Indus. Baluchistan was probably not a part of their initial plan, but they later occupied that territory by military might (Baloch people still haven't accepted Pakistani rule, they want to be independent again).

If we see Pakistan's activities since it's creation, in all the three regions they couldn't gain, Kashmir, Punjab and Afghanistan, they have exported terrorism and provoked separatism with a hope to get hold of these territories. Problem is that, their present leadership is still far to get rid of those dreams, and as I was reading in some articles that they will probably carry on to incite terrorism in those three places for years to come.

As far as India's interest is considered, probably an independent Baluchistan is good for us, strategically speaking, and an independent Sindh as well (many Sindhs want independence as well, from Pakistan). That way Pakistan won't have access to a port and given that both Balochs and Sindhs are relatively pro-India, we will have a friendly neighborhood, + land root to middle east. We can chop Pakistan off the rich resources of Baluchistan as well, and a poor enemy is always better than a rich enemy, for any nation.

******************************************************************
******************************************************************
******************************************************************

For China, well, they will keep asking for the western side of Kashmir, and the northern side of north east. During the 1962 war, they entered Assam. Probably, they will keep asking for all the territories where we have the mongoloid people in India. The biggest mistake here, was done in the 50s by the then Indian leadership, when they didn't help the Tibetans to protect themselves from Chinese aggression, given that we were stronger than the Chinese that time.

Here also, it seems that the most efficient way to get rid of the problem of China's demand of India's territory is an independent Tibet. That way, we will share little border, and will have a very good buffer state to protect us from any direct confrontation with the Chinese. Tibetans never accepted Chinese occupation, and it's nothing more than us under the British during the colonial past.

A major setback to this movement was the death of Dalai Lama's brother recently in the USA, who was pro-independent. Dalai lama is more like Gandhi, not asking for total independence but self governance. Hope our R&AW will keep helping the Tibetans on this.

******************************************************************
******************************************************************
******************************************************************

Coming back to the westerners perception towards India, well, it will take some time to change. There are two major thing that the westerners consider while profiling a nation. Their military might and their economic strength. Japan got Europe's respect when they defeated Russia in 1904-05 in the naval battle, and later when they developed economically.

We will have to keep working to develop our military might, and our economic side, as better these two will be, more respect we will get from the west. The problem is that for the moment, most of the western nations (ex. colonizers) look at the ex. colonized nations with a global perspective, and in many of those countries, children learn in the school that Europe went to colonization because those countries and their people were savage, and being civilized, it was Europe's moral duty to civilize those unfortunate lot.

Kipling wrote a poem on this that became famous. The present generation of Europeans have read those stuffs during their school life, and hence somewhere inside their brain, this notion exists that Europeans are superior people who saved the world by colonizing and bringing the savage people in the light of civilization. And this notion is further strengthened by the fact that since the industrial revolution, almost everything have been invented by them.

So it is not only Americans, it's all the European nations who have such prejudices towards Indians, and towards others who were colonized. We need time to come out of this dogma, we need to be stronger economically, stronger militarily, and probably one more global war where we can show our might to the world.

And then, we need to stop inferioriting ourselves and our culture as well. President Sarkozy in one of his visits to the Africa, told exactly this. That to start getting respect from others people first get rid of looking down at themselves. We, in India is still culturally colonized. More than 60 years after getting independence, we still give more importance to people who speak in our ancient colonizer's language. We look at them from down (and then feel bad when they look at us from up).

So this will take time. A stronger India economically and from military might is needed. A cultural revolution is needed as well, where Hindi (or Sanskrit, whatever) will be promoted as our national language, and we will be proud with our own language in the everyday life.
_________________
Request | Rules
Our photos | My photos

[Indian]

well said.
just one small comment.
i think the name 'Pakistan' came up from word - 'Pak' which means 'pure'. same word is used with holy Quran and is refered as 'Quran-e-pak'. so pak + stan (homeland) eg afghanistan, hindustan, kazakistan and so on.
the name implied 'a pure country'. but ironically, see what is happening there. their ancestors visualized right things but the furure generations screwed it up. i cant help using two muhawras here -

1. Bunder ke haath mein ustara (razor in the hands of monkey). giving power/ a country to fundamentalists in 1947 who believed in 2 nation theory.

2. Baba bishwakarma, chhaley chaamchike (father Vishwakarma God, son an owl). ancestors visualized good things but suceeders goofed it up

[Sourav]

Actually yes, Pak does mean "pure", but that is the derived meaning of the name Pakistan. The name itself was not derived from the word pure, it's rather an acronym of the parts that was meant to be part of the new country.

The idea was first produced in a pamphlet "now or never" published in 1933, by one Chaudhry Rehmat Ali.


To some extent, that obsession that was supposed to be the raison d'être of the nation, became the reason of destruction of them. Too bad.
_________________
Request | Rules
Our photos | My photos

[ashwani.singla@yahoo.fr]

What a knowledge !!!!





Cheers

Ashwani
_________________
visit my blog

http://sixsigmamanagement.blogspot.com/

[MarieAntoinette23]

Sourav, your reply to my comment is well-thought out, thank you. It’s good to know I am not the only person in the world who writes lengthy responses in forums. As far as I know, people in America are hesitant to think that much. Anyways, I like your view on India’s place in the world. Europe once had a relationship with India that involved colonialism in action and thought. This means the bad stuff happened in India and was taught to European children as a justification. It is a challenge for many westerners (especially Americans) to look past some of the societal issues in India to get to the good stuff including books and art.

Fortunately, many European nations have been spending a decade or more shaking off their colonial thinking in terms of maintaining good relations with India. I feel a reason could be that the country is once again, the hot nation. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, because it's tastes so good! After researching online and via books, I realized three countries are India’s "bestfriend": Russia, Japan and Iran. France, Italy and Germany are getting there since the history spans several centuries.

I think India is more receptive with France and Germany than with Italy or the UK because they have made alot of deals involving education, the military, economics, etc. The idea is to broaden the scope of projects as opposed to being limited. France is a popular nation as well and India accepted influence in a few of its cities (Pondicherry, for example) from the 18th century till the mid 20th century.

As for China and India, I don't see these two nations making significant progress anytime soon since Tibet is still an issue. The UK recognizes China's control over Tibet as legal, so won't intervene. India and China already toned the border issue down, so I don't think any new ones will come up. They even agreed to be connected via the re-opening of a route in Arunchal Pradesh last year.

The thing about Tibet is that it doesn't belong to anyone, logically-speaking. The territory was under British control in the 19th century till the Indian Partition of 1947 . The Sino-Indian wars of the 1960’s concluded with India saying something along the lines of, “Hey, if you want Tibet, it’s yours! Just don’t attack us”. What is China complaining about now? India is not gonna reclaim Tibet!

As for the Middleast, I do feel that Pakistan should not have become a country of its own because that caused continuous yet costly war spanning 50+ years. Nobody deserves to die at the hands of another because of old problems that could’ve been resolved with sufficient peace talks (if none had already occurred). Pakistan and India are doing their own thing yet how does that solve the border conflict? More children and innocent adults die at the hands of soldiers firing guns at eachother. It’s not a war on a large scale, but a small one which makes it even worse. Warfare is allowed if there is money to spend. Now, I can imagine that a lot of money was spent by the Indian government on its military over the course of 50+ years. America is enduring an economic crisis that close to becoming a second Great Depression. One of the reasons is the 10 billion dollar or more packages over the course of seven years being spent on the war in the middleast. I sometimes ask when the US international policy comes up: why continue a war if its causes the people of one’s own nation to be poor?

Anyways, what about France and India? Any new useful deals?

[Sourav]