India as a great power

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21574458-india-poised-become-one-four-largest-military-powers-world-end

by JumpCrisscross • 13 years ago

105 58 13 years ago

rikacomet12• 13 years ago

India, or rather its military expansion/presence is in my view as an Indian citizen, is in the right direction. Firstly this is in line with the fact, that we are a founder of Non Alignment Movement (1961), a movement, that in the shadows, kept the rest of the world powers out of the Cold War, as many might not know or think, NAM is one of the actual reason, that a war between the West Bloc and East Bloc never really happened. So yes, today, if we are not positioned as a anti-matter to any country, it is because of our roots. In fact, the whole conflict against Pakistan is passive, if we were US, we might have made permanent bases in Pakistan to keep them in check, like US did in Japan, but we didn't. With China, growing, we do not share the same sense of hostility as some do in the west. Anything India does is just actually a strategic action to balance its interest between this hostility. No offence, meant.

Anyways, the spending over the last few years in India, has rather been of modernizing nature than expansive nature. An example of that is 1.5 billion spent on a SECOND HAND aircraft carrier by India, of which we have near zero.

India as a great power? yes, India is becoming a great power military, politically, economically , socially, etc, but we would rather like the world to see our opinion on handling our military. This is actually a good article about India to make frontpage, since it allows the opportunity for us to showcase, that this is the land of Gandhi, we could have done a lot of things to Pakistan, but we knew, that our differences are deeper than any military discord.

As a muslim, I have also realized, that over the years, the problems of muslims of pakistan is NOT the problems of muslims of India, and they really need to work a lot of things up in Socio-Economic factors. A stable democratic govt, free from military control is one. We never had any coup, but pakistan did quite a few. This I'm saying not to offend anyone, but to highlight, how in India, Military and Civil establishments are parallel close lines, but in Pakistan, they are intersecting lines.

with proper education, the next generation of Indians and Pakistanis, will see and solve our basic problem of discord, that is to say, if other countries (none named) do not intervene for their own interest, which are quite a few, for example, a amalgamation of India-Pakistan would almost instantly increase our cotton production capacities, which are fundamentally supplementary to each other, and today are actually struggling because of our relations. Besides, we have near about same economic standards, and it would be like a catapulting India ahead of China almost instantly. But this is something, a lot of people don't see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#India

Uchikoma2• 13 years ago

"NAM is one of the actual reason, that a war between the West Bloc and East Bloc never really happened."

This seems to be a view not widely held outside of NAM countries. Do you have any facts, events e.g. to support that claim? e.g. how NAM countries worked during the Cuban crisis? Or how NAM countries helped during the Able Archer crisis? Or how they were involved in the Berlin crisis of 61 with the T-54 and M-48 tank standoffs? (three events that come to mind where the cold war was nearly going hot)

rikacomet12• 13 years ago

yes, Please read the NAM wiki. The design of the NAM was actually for as per the official definition, was to break the cold war. And ever since, it so happened, it has been struck with a lack of direction.

Well, isn't it obvious? During cold war, countries were being pressed to join either of the blocs, but NAM provided a barrier against this pressing, when countries unanimously agreed to stay neutral and share the opinion.

Due to its nature, that whatever was happening, was on a diplomatic behind closed doors basis, where discussions were being held about stances hiding it from both US and USSR bloc, it is very hard to trace, what they really did, and how they did it. But, with a attendance of 55% or 115 countries, you cannot rule it out as just another organization.

EDIT: http://mealib.nic.in/?2029

please check out this official foreign policy extract from 1983, it was a big event in world politics. reading only the Introduction will let you know.

fakeer4• 13 years ago

Now, I don't really believe that India or NAM actually played a key/direct/active role in preventing a war on one those provocative and volatile occasions, triggered by either side but I do believe that NAM provided a platform for a large number of countries to stay out of the 'big-game'.

For one, it prevented the world from being totally polarized into two opposites which was, (no dear I do not have a mathematical proof for this statement), a good reason for shelling not happening across every border on this planet - well, simply because the idea of if you are not a friend you are an enemy was absent and NAM was the reason.

AFAIK NAM or India was not at all involved in any direct intervention of any war or war like situation (esp. b/w the big two). India was not capable of doing this either with military power or diplomacy. Hell, it just wanted to stay out of the cross-fire having recently been freed and trying to be on its own feet with a plethora or problems at hand related to caste, religion, education and poverty etc.

>>three events that come to mind where the cold war was nearly going hot

Yeah, that is what happens when sensational journalism and films take over. All we see and remember of a decades long conflict are cannons being fired and spies shooting with silencered pistols :-)

dsfasfasf3• 13 years ago

The BS is strong in this one.

ashray6• 13 years ago

Uhh.. India buys so many tanks, aircrafts, etc. because politicians here take a healthy cut on those deals. There's no strategy involved, it's pure business. Also, pointing at Pakistan as the enemy works because of long term cultural issues. The one time that the navy chief mentioned China's a worry - everyone scoffed at him and he was almost fired.

Source: My father was a senior air force pilot and was being coerced into buying obsolete airplanes from a dealer since the home minister's son was involved in making the deal.

rikacomet12• 13 years ago

sorry no offence, but that story sounds like less believable to me for some reasons. 1. airplane deals are not cleared by anyone but the senior most of general rank airforce officials, so can you please mention your father's exact rank level again?

2. Home minister's son you say? which home minister if you can mention?

3. If my father was a such a senior air force pilot, I would rather not be even mentioning this, because this is a accusation, and it really means a great deal to do so without proof. A family member of a senior airforce official, sounds a lot unbelievable to me. Sorry, but I can't believe your 'sources'

fakeer4• 13 years ago

1. It has to be cleared by pilots, senior pilots in that list even clerical level staff come at places. If some one with expertise objects then that objection is either bought, or objector is coerced or sometimes eliminated (esp.) if the deal runs quite long into millions. This 'clearing by expertise/experts' thing was explained by a friend of mine currently posted at Yelahanka AFS.

2. I would like to know this too. Chidambaram has a son who is a crook and I am sure the father is one too. Not sure he was the one mentioned.

3. Well, this sounds credible(your counter-point I mean) and worrying :-)

aangjie• 13 years ago

>because this is a accusation, and it really means a great deal to do so without proof.

This is part of the attitude that gets on my nerves really. Public media is not a court of law. And that was by design that goes along with democracy. I won't deny the design has its problems, but i am more interested in seeing how the design can be improved. If you don't want to examine, just ignore the accusation.

dsfasfasf3• 13 years ago

You are complaining a bit too much. Why?

mseebach• 13 years ago

So the exact details of the OPs story doesn't add up. Maybe it's because they're lying, maybe they're being deliberately vague as pr. your third point.

It certainly is plausible, the Indian government is well known to be highly corrupt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India#Politics

a9entroy• 13 years ago

Maybe you're a journalist or something. Obviously he can't give away the exact details dude.

ashray6• 13 years ago

I'd rather not share any details even though my father passed away earlier this month. Rest assured, when I say senior pilot, I mean at the highest echelons of the forces. Yes, General Rank level indeed.

Maybe you don't know how deals work but they often require a recommendation from the people who are going to actually USE the equipment.

I don't see why you seem to be so upset about this. It's hardly a secret in India. I didn't say that my father agreed to be party to this, and neither do many other senior military officials, but this is a dirty game and no one denies that.

As for you not believing my sources, frankly, I don't really care.

For reference, this was within the last 10 years.

RestlessMind2• 13 years ago

"less believable"?? Clearly, you are not familiar with India. In fact, if there is a huge arms deal for defense forces (or huge deal for anything), you can bet there is involvement of at least one politician to take his cut.

jacquesm3• 13 years ago

That's an excellent idea, have the military bring their own tanks from home and air-force pilots to own their own jets.

That will teach them to be more careful with the gear too!

manojlds• 13 years ago

Did you read the whole article? The corruption in big military deals is mentioned as a big worrying factor.

batgaijin• 13 years ago

eh this is useless postering getting reported for no reason.

why does importing tech ever matter? especially tanks? they need to have independent defense contractors within india fighting for contracts fairly; until then this is useless reporting because it won't even mention the incentives for politicians for importing this tech.

vacri3• 13 years ago

What happens when your importer cuts off supply? For a small country, you really have no option, but India is a huge country that is more than capable of domestic supply.

What if India was dependent on US arms, and war erupted with China? And what if the US, wanting to keep China and Pakistan onside for their own affairs, bottlenecks the supply of arms to keep them happy?

Or currently, with 50% of India's arms coming from Russia - overland they've either got to go through hostile Pakistan or China itself. By sea it's vulnerable to a strong navy, and you'd see a lot of Chinese naval activity east of Africa. With satellites and other modern tech, you can't play the hide-and-seek naval supply of yesteryear - surface shipping is incredibly vulnerable.

fakeer4• 13 years ago

For a short notice (such an) event India might be in trouble unless some other nation/supplier comes forward with a better cost or commitment to some sort of alliance/favour or support and solidarity.

If it happens not in a war like situation then the contract was broken by the supplier and India is fully capable of using those manufacturer's patents and manual as recipe book just like China has been doing for decades. Now, that country can't go their government or Indian government and say - "hey, look we screwed India and now it's screwing us back".

If you wanted a short an final answer - then yes, India will be in trouble.

plinkplonk• 13 years ago

The article uses "great power" as a synonym for 'buys lots of weapons' or more charitably "has a strong army". By these definitions, North Korea is a "great power".

India is decades away from being a 'great power'. Lots of internal problems to solve first (said as an Indian living in India)

rikacomet12• 13 years ago

yes, I would agree with you a lot on what you said above. The war with china (if any) is not on the military level, but is and should be on the socio-economic development issues.

we should ought to say, that we both have 1 billion+ people, lets see who can do things for them better, who can eradicate cancer/malaria/dengue/H1N1/etc, who can provide better education and opportunities, and much more.

The fights of today and tomorrow should not be fought with guns and explosives, it should be with budgets and plan implementations.

jostmey• 13 years ago

I have never been to India but my girlfriend spent six months there. She would laugh at the title of this article. In her eyes, India has to radically change culturally before the country may blossom. For example, one cultural problem is that too many people just acquiesce in the face of difficulty.

EliRivers• 13 years ago

The article uses "great power" as a synonym for 'buys lots of weapons' or more charitably "has a strong army". By these definitions, North Korea is a "great power".

Not true. You've mistaken "huge army" for "strong army". The DPRK military is huge (in terms of manpower). It is, nonetheless, not remotely capable enough to qualify as "great power".

brownbat• 13 years ago

Companion piece, India's political system is nonfunctioning:

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/zakaria-i...

I think it even subsumes and helps explain the lack of a coherent military strategy - there's a lack of any direction at the highest levels of governance.

"If it doesn't get its act together, 10 years from now people might still be praising the BRICs, except that the "I" in BRIC might stand for Indonesia, not India."

lenkite• 13 years ago

"Great power" ROFL. We are a nation where most of the country lives in poverty and have a truckload of economic and social problems that we like to sweep under the carpet. Importing weapons does not make us a "great power".

suprgeek• 13 years ago

Having personally experienced the massive dysfunction at all levels in India, this article makes almost no sense. India's is ruled by corrupt and incompetent bunch of sycophants & dynasties that are incapable of thinking strategically at any level. The massive and entrenched corruption means that rather than tanks and planes, all an adversary needs is a chunk of cash - they could paralyze any decision making and ensure a Military dominance.

ajays• 13 years ago

India is trying to be a "great power" in the 50s Soviet-era style.

Today's world is about soft power. India is woefully lacking there. It is beset by internal strife (the entire Northeast has been under some form of "martial law" (AFSPA) for 50 years). The central-western region has the Naxalite problem, which keeps on simmering and growing. And then there's Kashmir.

Aside from Bhutan, none of India's neighbors take it seriously. If India can't even project its power on its own borders, how will it do anything beyond?

The reality is: India's defence budget is basically a piggybank for political parties to fund the elections (and pad the bank accounts of senior politicians). The first thing a party does when it comes to power is sign some major defence deals (or "modify" deals in the pipeline, so they can get their cut also).

wmalik• 13 years ago

It's a pity that India and Pakistan both prefer spending insane amounts of money and effort in upgrading their military toys, rather than improving quality of education, health, and life in general for their citizens. In both countries, poverty rates, education standards and quality of life are among the worst in the world.

Pakistan and India need to invest more money and effort in being partners rather than enemies, they share almost the same grass root problems, so an increased cooperation will only improve the situation. I say this as a patriotic Pakistani who has spent his entire life (except for the last three years) in Pakistan.

Peace.

mark_l_watson• 13 years ago

I don't claim much knowledge of the far east, so this is just a gut reaction: to me (in the USA) I have always looked at India as being a very good partner for the USA. I think both countries share a lot of common values and have aligned interests.

I hope for an as good as possible relationships with China, but it seems like China's interests are not so well aligned with ours. (I am still waiting for China to join with possibly Russia, South America, and other regions to jump off of the US$ as their reserve currency.)

contingencies• 13 years ago

I have spent 13 years in the area and am currently/mostly in China's south-western area bordering Myanmar (very close to the disputed region in far north-eastern India). I am very lazily writing a history on the area, purely out of personal interest.

It's probaly worth pointing out that all of the borders in this area are essentially modern / historically largely irrelevant, dating basically from colonial times, and falling arbitrarily across significant ethnographic and cultural boundaries. In addition, the proxy economic/diplomatic conflict in Myanmar (nicely summarized at http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/03/china-didnt...) is a serious concern for all parties at present, and entirely excluded from the article.

The US is deeply involved there, and not for the first time, having operated a dangerous, famous and still well remembered and locally celebrated air route over the Himalayan foothills from eastern India known as 'The Hump' in support of Chinese resistance against the Japanese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump

Still earlier, the Americans were also to be chief suppliers of the ultimately failed English Myanmar-China train project much discussed in early 20th century English parliament (they were pretty jiffed the French beat them to it from Northern Vietnam). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yunnan-Burma_Railway (I snapped the pic there!)

I don't see India projecting any influence in this part of China, really. There are few Indian businesses, commercial envoys or students (unlike Bangladeshi, Burmese, Korean, Thai, etc.). Of late the eastern Indian area (Brahmaputra valley) at which the northern section exists the greater disputed area has been mostly opened to tourists for the first time. Most of the 'Burmese' present here are actually Bangladeshi Muslim traders who have acquired Burmese documentation. Buddhists are few and far between.

My understanding is that local governors of that part of India are keen to trade with China and re-open the (American-army-corps engineered, but largely local labourer-built) Stillwell Road ("Burma Road"), and there have been India/China discussions to that effect for many years now. No action though, and the proxy political conflict in Burma is probably going to result in further delays. Though plans have been announced for railways to Myanmar from China (and early political posturing for onward links to Bangladesh), nothing seems to have moved and recent politicking probably means long delays on any concrete development.

This is all further complicated by Chinese relations with the Kachin, Wa and Shan armies along Myanmar's northern periphery, their not insignificant presence on the Chinese side of the border (especially the Wa and Shan/Dai/Tai), the presence of opium, the China government's widely assumed and somewhat evidenced involvement in its large-scale trans-shipment, the historical presence of nationalist (Taiwanese) anti-communist warlords in the region.

NB. Earlier in my career I had some experience dealing with the Indian Military. Lots of posturing culminated in untold swathes of military officials listening to technical presentations for which they obviously had no competency (asking irrelevant questions, etc.)

India as a great power

Related Stories