I know, we are all busy reading news about the war in the middle east, but I was going through some mind boggling articles, and found this one kinda interesting… Enjoy reading. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EC26Df02.html
During the past months of intense diplomatic maneuvering concerning Iraq, it was distressing to note that while all major nations were involved in the effort to resolve the crisis, India could do no more than issue occasional statements by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee expressing the nation’s desire to have a peaceful resolution. Despite the fact that a potentially dangerous situation was developing in India’s own back yard, New Delhi had no ability to participate, and other nations had no interest in what India had to say.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
how is that India's Anti-Muslim FP??
I don't understand. If say country X is not involved in the Iraq situation, they are anti-Muslim?
[/QUOTE]
RF, I would recommend that you read the whole article... The article clearly says that in order to be sucessfull in Indian foreign office, you have to be anti-Pakistan, anti-China, and anti-Muslim...
RF, I would recommend that you read the whole article... The article clearly says that in order to be sucessfull in Indian foreign office, you have to be anti-Pakistan, anti-China, and anti-Muslim...
[/QUOTE]
My apologies. I can agree with anti-Pakistan, China...but I doubt the Indians can make their FP overtly anti-Muslim, as many many Muslim nations have really good relations with India (some better with India than Pakistan).
One-eyed policy poses danger to India
By Ramtanu Maitra
Gross failures
The Jaswant Singh-led groveling began to flower after the US declaration of war on terrorism in September 2001. At the time, India threw its full support into the US campaign - a not unreasonable move except that it was motivated exclusively by the hope that the United States would help India curb Pakistan’s support of Kashmiri militants.
Obsessed with Pakistan and clutching on to the US promise, India’s policy toward Pakistan became enmeshed with the United States’ policy toward Pakistan.
It became evident at that point that having made the Pakistan problem the center of its foreign policy and latched on to the US to deal with it, India had lost everything.
New Delhi’s failure to extract any concession from Pakistan in the war on terrorism has made it more anti-Pakistan than ever. Having come to realize that Washington will do little to help on cross-border terrorism, New Delhi feels the need to prove to the Indian people that it has not given up its hostile posture to Pakistan. The political decision to remain obsessed with Pakistan has further distorted India’s ability to play any role in world affairs.
The biggest failure of the Indian policymakers was in not realizing that Pakistan is the cornerstone of Washington’s global “war on terrorism”. It was well known that the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had nurtured and strengthened the two elements that the US was keen to eliminate - the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. Without Pakistan’s help, which came in fits and starts, Washington had no ability to achieve even a nominal level of success in this venture.
The US agenda never included elimination of Kashmiri militants, notwithstanding what Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage promised or didn’t promise. What Washington had in mind was to prevent an all-out war between India and Pakistan, fearing a nuclear exchange. The US policy to bring India over to its side in the “war on terrorism” was to prevent such a war. This simple fact was ignored by New Delhi.
One of the reasons that India walked into that foolish trap is the in-built anti-China mindset of most of the External Affairs Ministry babus. China considers Pakistan its strong ally and has helped it develop its nuclear capabilities. China did that for a number of reasons, and it cannot be the basis for Sino-Indian relations.
Dangers ahead
The Pakistan-centered foreign-policymaking process has created other distortions. For instance, a number of members in the present Indian government, driven by their anti-Muslim obsession, have found a new ally in Israel. Major-General Uzi Dayan, head of Israel’s National Security Council, visited India last year for a “joint security strategic dialogue”. Former foreign minister Shimon Peres, during his visit to India last year, dubbed India “Israel’s best friend” in the region.
The killing of Muslims in Gujarat last year and the emergence of a powerful anti-Muslim bloc within the ruling government in India poses an additional serious threat to India’s ability to play a meaningful role in world events. The longer-term danger for India is the Muslim issue. There is no question that the Pakistan situation will not improve in the foreseeable future. The Pakistani army will continue to have a firm grip on the nation’s foreign policies
By directing India’s foreign policy to align with the anti-Islam, anti-Muslim cabal, New Delhi has set on a dangerous path. India, with a billion-plus people and a well-developed technological base, may soon be identified as an anti-Muslim nation - a prospect India cannot afford. India’s future success, and the nation’s stability, will depend on how it interacts within the region and beyond it. Should India get bogged down as an anti-Muslim nation, with two Muslim nations - Pakistan and Bangladesh - to its west and east, the country will be truly, permanently straitjacketed.
India’s NO was the most disagreeable truth George W. Bush has learnt recently. It is not so harsh as China’s, but it was voiced on a higher level. Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said: “The use of force by a superpower to change a regime is wrong and cannot be supported”.
“The US has certainly made progress in the war against international jihadi terrorism. India, the most suffering victim of pan-Islamic jihadi terrorism in the world today, has reasons to be gratified over the US success in its operations,” B.Raman says. B.Raman is Additional Secretary (ret), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and presently director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai; former member of the National Security Advisory Board of the Government of India. He was also head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency, from 1988 to 1994. But Mr. Raman himself isn’t so much enthusiastic what can be seen by the headline of his publication “The USA Will Achieve Pyrrhic Victory” posted on Asia Times website in Hong Kong on March 21. He wrote: “What the US advocated and continues to advocate for Iraq is not democracy as perceived by the majority of Iraqi people, but democracy as designed in the Central Intelligence Agency that would serve US national interests. The question is not whether the US will win, but how soon. But it will be a Pyrrhic victory, which will not contribute to enhanced peace and security for the US, Israel or the rest of the international community. The world has nearly a billion Muslims”.
India’s Moslem population is 130 million people; the Moslem states of Pakistan and Afghanistan are its neighbors. Moslem community is the biggest in Malaysia, that is also very close to India. Indonesia with its 220 million population is considered to be the most densely populated Moslem country of the world, and it is also very close to India. The Indian expert on anti-terrorist struggle cannot but denounce US’s operations in Iraq that aggravate the terrorism problem even more. However, it seems that he himself hasn’t yet realized the depth of the forecast concerning the “Pyrrhic victory”.
Very interesting reading. So tell why are more Islamic countries still receptive to India? I mean the Israeli-Indian Nexus is pretty well established while many Arab countries are STILL maintaining relations with India. The Isreali connection could be the closest thing to India’s anti-Muslim FP, however it doesn’t match up well empirically because countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh are not involved the events of the Middle East.
First off Durango, any article using the word “Moslem” loses any authenticity with most edcuated people ('Muslim & non Muslim alike). The word is MUSLIM not Moslem, Moslim, or Muhammadan! It’s like calling Hindus: Hindoos, or Hundoo.
Secondly, Pakistan maintains better relations with Indonesia and Malaysia, so the article is in effect misleading. Although the current NA ruling Junta is Indian inclined, the next regime (oh there WILL be another regime) will be Pakhtun pro-Pakistani.
Thirdly, this is an editorial more than an article meaning one persons slanted opinions. Also the link you provided does not open up to the article.