1. The title of this article is incorrect, misleading and mischievous. India is not pursuing non-alignment, but simply pursuing its own national interests, and maintaining its strategic autonomy. There is no need for India to take side, unless interests converge.

2. Japan, S Korea, Singapore are prosperous nations, not because they are allied to the US, but because of their own strength. Otherwise Pakistan would also be a success story if one has to believe in the author's theory.

3. The author points out China supplying missiles and nuclear tech to Pakistan, but conveniently side steps how the US, instead of declaring Pakistan a terrorist state, maintains its fire power against India through measured transfer of weapons and tens of billions of dollars, all in the name of war on terror.

4. The US-India nuclear deal has come laden with a number of poison pill amendments, making it infringing on India's sovereignty. Therefore India passing its own Nuclear Liability Bill should also be viewed in the same light. The US Congress can not be allowed to decide on India's sovereignty.

5. India's decision on the MMRCA purchase is based purely on India's own requirements and national interests. It is absolutely unfair to term it as a wrong decision just because the American bids were rejected.

6. On Iran, India has a clearly stated policy of encouraging Iran to fulfil its obligations as an NPT signatory. There is no evidence yet of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. India has vital economic and strategic interests in good relations with Iran which it can not give up simply because the Americans would wish so.

7. American frustration, not to be able to get India to sign the various defense agreement, namely (a) interoperability (b) Logistic sharing (c) End use monitoring etc is understandable. The Americans argue that these are standard agreements that British, Australians or the Japanese have signed and India can not be exception. Well, good luck to those American allies, India would never want to be one such ally.

8. US-India partnership is designed for a long term, keeping China's rise in view. There is absolutely no reason for India to rush.

This article just seems to be a rant than actual countering of India's foreign policy. The author is just saying : this is wrong, that is wrong, India should do this, India should do that. But why ?!!!
e.g.
Why was the nuclear liability law "unfair" to the US ? As far as I see it, it is in accordance with natural jurisprudence - you make a mistake, you pay. And it has not stopped other countries (even though the status of their firms is slightly different from the US ones) from dealing with India, has it. Prosperity of the Indian people can go down the drain if the Indian state does not learn anything from Bhopal.
And, as Kanwal Sibal said in the linked article, if Pakistan is not a black-and-white case for US, then why should Iran be for India ?

If history is any guide, then India is well to be wary of US.
India might be "an unreliable friend" of the US, but when has US ever been a reliable friend of India ?

And, I completely disagree that Nonalignment 1.0 was a failure. To put India's poor economic growth on nonalignment is just stupid. If that was the case, then Pakistan should be a prosperous country by now. But look what happened to it - it lost ~ 50% of its landmass and is in a mess now.

Nations prosper if they make their own choices, not live by someone else's diktat.

It is not possible for India to convert refineries overnight that are built to process Iranian crude.

Obama and all the other previous American presidents have been conducting business as usual with China that is having a far more flourishing business partnership with Iran.

Nixon’s America had NO problem embracing China’s Communist dictatorship when Mao’s cultural revolution was going on with full force killing millions of innocent Chinese.
Obama’s America keeps aiding Pakistan even when it knows fully well that Pakistani State shelters and supports the very terrorist outfits who have been killing US/NATO troops in Afghanistan since 2001.

Dhume has to face what India is facing everyday - it is a doggy-dog world out there where every country has to look after its own economic interests first and foremost. It is true for India as much as it is true for America that has no problem importing oil from even more conservative Islamic kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Firstly, the article is filled with factual inaccuracies. Yes, India did oppose military action in Libya but it has not "sided with the Russians and the Chinese in their battles on behalf of Bashar al-Assad". In fact, India supported the UN resolution condemning Syria's government. And, it has also repeatedly voted in favor of UN resolutions condemning Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Before 2007, India and Iran had drawn ambitious plans for military cooperation, and all of that was put on hold because of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Both India and Iran had also drawn ambitious plans for exporting natural gas to India through Pakistan, and that too has been effectively cancelled. India had initially pledged more than US$5 billion investment to develop Iran's Farsi gas field, but till date, none of these investment plans have materialized. Yet Mr. Dhume alleges that India has not done enough to pressurize Iran.

Mr. Dhume, though of Indian origin, represents a typical ignorant, arrogant and obnoxious American. If the "strategic alliance" between India and the US is only possible if the former acts like a stooge of the latter, then this relationship has no future. Call it "Non-Alignment 2.0" or whatever, but fact remains that no generation of India's populace, current or future, will sacrifice the strategic autonomy of the nation.

When it comes to foreign policy, national interests are paramount, and the US is no better example of this. For more than two decades, India constantly complained about Pakistan being a safe heaven for terrorists, and yet the US turned a blind eye to Pakistani militant groups targeting India. Where was this strategic alliance then, Mr. Dhume? When Mr. Obama visited China in 2009, he urged that country to play a more proactive role in South Asia. He even proposed a "G2" special relationship between the two nations. Where was the Indo-American strategic alliance then, Mr. Dhume? Fact remains, Obama administration's love for India grew only after China snubbed the US, and Pakistan openly defied the US' "War on Terror". So please Mr. Dhume, spare us your rant.

India might be engaged in a bit of a strategic rivalry with China, but fact is, both the nations are neighbors and have no other option but to develop closer ties. Both India and China realize that. A conflict between India and China will only benefit Western nations as it will stall Asia's economic growth and increase Western military equipment sales in Asia. This time, however, Asians will not fall for the petty games of the White Man.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dhume can continue to sing praises for his adopted country. And while he is at it, maybe he should also undergo racial transformation surgery since he has already been brain-washed.

The author ignores allot.

Neel228 picked the "article" apart rather well.

My points (some have been covered by Neel)

1. US/ Pak relations:

The USA has a long history of arming Pakistan, and even looking the other way when it knew Pakistan was working on the A bomb during the Soviet jihad. F 16's, fire finding radar, artillery, APC's, and more have been supplied to Pakistan at subsidized sale prices.

During the 1971 war the USA did everything it could to support the genocidal West Pakistani dictatorship in wiping out Bengalis. When India intervened to stop the massacre, the USA tried to get China to attack India in order to protect Pakistan and keep the genocide going.

2. Nuclear liability.

After the Bhopal disaster any large scale industrial projects in India cannot be completed without the foreign partner taking some kind of responsibility for any potential disaster. India is not a dumping ground and its peoples lives are not worthless. If the US companies don't want to play a fair game, then they can take their ball and go home.

3. MMRCA

The MMRCA competition was fair. the US offered 2 planes that were designed in the 1970s and are slated to be replaced by the F 35. The F 16 was sold to Pakistan 30 years ago. The Rafale and Eurofighter are far more modern air frames which have long bright futures ahead of them. When India buys the Rafales, they actually belong to India, and not the government of France. After the sanctions following the 1998 nuclear tests the US placed massive sanctions on India. After that experience, putting a large part of the combat air fleet at the mercy of US lawmakers an
would be foolish.

4. Iran'

Irans reformist leaders tried to mend ties with the US after 9/11. They helped during the invasion of Afghanistan by supporting the northern alliansce, and were crucial in bringing Americas man, Karzai, into power.

The Iranians offered the US help in Iraq before the invasion, because they knew there would be massive ethnic upheaval. They also offered to end support for terrorism, end their nuclear program, and normalize relations with Israel. The Bush administration ignored them, made Iran part of the axis of evil, and began blaming Iran for the problems it faced in Iraq.

The reformists made many concessions to the US and got nothing in return. The supreme council removed the reformists because it realized the US did not want peace, so it brought in the current Iranian leader Ahmadinejad.

The US only has itself to blame ofr its bad relations with Iran. India should not have to pay the price for Americas s foreign policy blunders.

If the US demands India break with Iran why does the US continue to be Pakistan's staunch ally, keeping the great Pak-US alliance going in the face of all trials?

Have you an answer, Dhume?

You say India has disappointed the US. Have you any idea of how much the US has disappointed India?

If you want India to be as staunch an ally of the US as Britain or Japan or Israel, what evidence have you that America respects Indian interests as it would the interests of those countries?

If Bhopal had happened in Israel would the US dismiss claims to compensation as callously?

If terrorists sent by Pakistan had attacked Israel or Japan would the US not have enforced Pakistan's cessation of the policy instead of doing damn all as it has done in the case of Pakistani terrorism against India?

The truth is India's alliance with the US is a business partnership and dependent on delivery. The US has never delivered the goods the Indians expected and hence the partnership can only be limited.

Cut links with Pakistan if you want India to cut links with Iran.

What the US wanted from India was a cheap coolie who could be suckered into doing dirty work for the US like sending its soldiers to die in US wars in return for some peanuts and crooked flattery.

Even Indian leaders have not been stupid enough to be swindled so easily.

The US is the land of the fast-talking huckster and one must always remember this.

India should play its American alliance like the other allies of the US - China and Pakistan. Coolly, cannily and totally unemotionally.

When you recommend India's becoming a whole-hearted US ally you ought to ask people to remember who else is the ally of the US - Pakistan.

South Korea became an unquestioning servitor of the US through such tests as sending 50000 troops to Vietnam who were a by-word for cruelty.

Japan had no choice about the US: it suffered two atom bombs.

India has no choice about keeping its distance from the US: the US is a close friend of Pakistan and even China.

You demand a wholesale Indian commitment to the US.

You do not demand a wholesale US commitment to India.

Why?

Dhume is such a sucker for US propaganda that he produces hilarious wails like this:

"As a post-colonial nation, India almost always privileges state sovereignty over human rights. For many Indians, the divide between the West and the East is more palpable than the one between democracies and dictatorships."

Well well....Now who does that sound like more than.....the US?

The US privileges its own interests real or fancied over human rights. Else why its great friendship with Saudi Arabia of Dark Ages fame and Uzbekistan where a UK ambassador resigned because dissidents were boiled alive?

For sure, India and China are in bitter rivalry . But when both countries forget self for a while,they will realized that Inida and China are all chessmans of the US's chessboard.

The author's ideological parochialism is appalling. Is that really what the AEI demands from its members, even the foreign ones -- to spin facts as to make it appear that US interests should be a matter, not of US, but of global striving? to become mindless vessels of Western provincianism and US supremacist talking points?

The author is too confused to make a solid commentary on the issue. Either that, or he's just plain dishonest. At the same time he pleads Indian intelligentsia to be more realistic, less ideological, more selfish, whenever it is convenient to defend his argument - that India should reduce itself to being a bulwark of US power in Asia - he employs an opposite strategy: moralism, self-righteousness and the notion of "solidarity between democracies", which reduces all aspects of the nations being discussed to their "democracyness" or their "dictatorshipness". It's hard to debate the author's views when he adopts conflicting ones.

Boye, I am happy that I didn't pay to take up this crap. Man what are you smoking these days. How can you call it a failure, when you don’t have one. In paper India had NAM(at least that what they teach in schools), effectively they just went round had red carpet welcomes, feasted and had egoistic clashes on the size of the motorcade. What India did for Bangladesh and still can’t even get them to sign an extradition treaty is just a sample.
Mr. Dhume, you don’t need to be an expert to be convinced that your stores just got robbed. When it comes to US, unfortunately history speaks for itself. US always has its vested interests and this time it were some expiring nukes and rusting jets. US took India as mediocre puppy that would run around chasing every stick thrown. Na, if there is anything that these guys in New Delhi care about more than being dead, it’s their image. This time they just got lucky and unfortunately for you it’s time to check your rasi.

India being an unreliable partner is a good thing for the American's, it acts as a constraint on their behaviour in ways that adversarial relationship could not, forcing the Americans to compromise, when it otherwise would not. A compromise for a friend is much more likely than it is for an enemy..

India should have a strategy off strategic autonomy, its foreign and domestic policy is shaped by the politics of poverty and identity, that few even in India seem to fathom. There is schizophrenia, a coherant foreign policy, which continually backs America is simply not realistic, and that has very little to do with some sort of anti-american sentiment, despite the populist rhetoric of the countries politicians or policy makers.

Clearly China represents India's main foreign policy challenge. A good relationship with the Americans is necessary to balance the threat, but it is too much for America to expect the government of India to (1) behave rationally, it is rarely a rational actor because its democratic politics and its government are dysfunctional (2) to somehow ignore a population of 200 million muslims and a relationship with the islamic world that goes back millenia.

Europe's stance against Turkey in India because there are certain Islamic countries, among them the European Union does not like
esenyurt cam balkon | cam balkon esenyurt | cam balkon istanbul | istanbul cam balkon | katlan?r cam balkon | cam balkon | cam balkon beylikdüzü | beylikdüzü cam balkon |

nation that we are all human beings, no matter what state they are nonetheless important to live in peace with people who

Ex Communist country India, wants America to do the dirty job for them and punish Pakistan, its close friend and ally! You can't expect others to fight for you while you do your greedy business with their adversaries. By the way India still has more poor than the whole of Africa, where 68 % (860 million) of population have no access to TOILETS and clean water.

Following our orders is not the definition of a good relationship. India, and Russia and China too, disagree with us. They have actual reasons for that. They may even be correct. We are far too tied down to jumping through hoops set by Netanyahu, and don't see our own interests clearly, much less a reasonable understanding of their interests.

No, India does not agree to crash its economy. Neither does China. That is not at all unreasonable. We are fools to be so willing to crash our economy, and take the world with us.

I completely agree. Right now India doesn't need to take sides. It is the need of the time and in best interest of both US and India to have good relation with each other esp. for the US because Pakistan is becoming more and more anti American & of course China's rise to power is matter of concern for both India and the US. India is the best bet for the US when it comes to counter China's influence in the region,as compared to Japan,South Korea,Singapore or Australia. As far as Iran is concern, India doesn't need to blindly follow the west or Israel. If having good relation with Iran is helping Josefina Vazquez Mota India in achieving regional goals then it should continue & regarding nuclear bomb, even America has accepted that Iran has not taken any decision about making a nuclear bomb and nobody is sure if they have such technology to do so.-Totally Agree with there Sir.

Whether non-alignment is still valid or outdated can be debated but this article does not put forth any convincing argument that suggests that India should do away with this idea altogether. The writer seems to suggest that any foreign policy framework that is built around the global interests of the United States is a modern, progressive foreign policy and countries like India that has an ambition to be counted among the powerful countries in the world should hang onto the coattails of the United States in order to achieve that. The United States would therefore play the role of their new master and have all the pleasure that imperialist British had for centuries by crippling these countries ability to take independent decisions based on their own interests without having to colonize any of them on the ground. I strongly believe India and other fast developing countries should intently pursue a foreign policy that serves their interest the best and should not unnecessarily get worried about whether that would be liked by the US or not. As regards India's position vis-a-vis the struggle for democracy in the Middle East and Africa, I think we are quite on the right track as unlike the United States and other Western countries in a sense that at least we are consistent. While USA strongly pitches for democracy in Syria it shamelessly sides with an authoritarian regime Saudi Arabia to suppress similar movement in Bahrain. Why such hypocrisy is well understood. The writer also talks about human rights violations and criticizes India's role preventing them but has he forgotten the degree of human rights violations the USA has inflicted and is still inflicting on the people of Afghanistan and Iraq or is he being deliberately obtuse? India's record in that respects is pretty clean. Instead of lecturing India and reminding it of its responsibility the author must go back and do a serious study of his adopted homeland's records in all those crucial human values that he wants the rest of the world to adhere to.

Why does our leadership keep courting India? They will never be a reliable friends and are barely any better than Pakistan. India needs the US far worse than we'll ever need them and if they are too stupid to realize that then that is their problem. We aren't the ones who are China's neighbor. Without the US China will dominate India. Not the other way around. We already have better and stronger allies in Asia. I have zero respect for India. They are not a real global power and might not ever be one. They are irresponsible and stupid. China is going to eat them alive. They will never get a permanent seat on the security council either. At least not as long as they keep acting like a Russian pawn.

Thanks Mr. Dhume for writing one of the best fiction stories ever. I visit this site to reinvigorate by grey cells but you have provided one of the best examples of right brain creativity. I am surprised, is this a fiction writing website or a place where we have some facts and figures.
The title should be " India's foreign policy is a failure because it's pursuing its interest ". I have much respect for an AEI scholar, please break that so easily

India is being railroaded into becoming another "partner" of NATO. Remember - the British first came "to do business", then to "protect", then to "civilize", finally came the RAJ ! Now, next chapter: "Indian should become part of the "political West"! (Join Hungary, Portugal, Irland, Latvia...) The fact: the U.S. and its NATO "partners" see the BRICS as the future "project" for "intervention" - after the Near East: The U.S. and Britain will never permit a "multipolar" world and fight to keep "full spectrum global dominance".

Frankly I'd say that people should have the view that America is more likely to rise in power than India.
The U.S population is generally highly educated and fairly well taxed while India still has to deal with very conservative attitudes towards women causing a gender imbalance, a large portion of the population barely educated and it can barely tax 3% of the population.
The U.S has allies on both borders and no realistic threat of revolution or separatism while India has to contend not just with nuclear Pakistan but a cold China, an increasing far-left insurgency and constant separatist tensions.
Corruption is generally not a real issue in the U.S whereas in India it is a constant one best shown by the deals made when the Indian legislature voted on a nuclear deal with the U.S.
Lastly India still has a large percentage of the population in villages lacking electricity.
In other words the United States, both the government and the country, has far more inherent advantages.

As for foreign policy, what is India's foreign policy anyway? What does India want and hope to do? What is India's opinion on the upcoming Venezuelan elections? Does India have an opinion about the rich/poor divide in South Africa or the Tuareg nationalism in the Sahel region? The only nations that India seems to be clear on are China and Pakistan. As long as India still thinks in terms of holding to state sovereignty and nonaligned movements it certainly isn't going to create a basic vision of how it wants different regions of the world to be.

This is an excellent example of a policy and decision making process that made sense and worked with a past set of facts, non-alignment in a bi-polar world. That doesn't work so well in among a different set of facts, non-alignment in a multi-polar world.

What India could be doing right now is working on Washington to turn openly and consistently against Pakistan. But, to do this India would need to build up the a relationship similar to that of America's allies if they wanted Washington to overthrow the marriage of convenience with Pakistan. Should America turn against Pakistan in a big way, which may happen whatever India does, and America goes back to it's fallback position toward hostile states it would be the greatest boon to India in their conflict with Pakistan. And India could then wring from Washington all sorts of concessions for American actions that India would desire anyway.

Secondly, western international order is a free trade, free navigation order. And China and to a lesser extent Russia seem to be resisting this on legitimate interest based desires for a power based mercantilist policy, where as India doesn't appear to have any mercantilist ambitions and derives great benefit from the free navigation and free trade system promoted by the west. And why would India not want a seat at the decision making table of that system which is so crucial to their economic strength and prosperity?

I agree that India has been losing track with it come to foreign policy. Indian Foreign Policy pundits normally tend to hunt in the dark not knowing which way to look and failing to make out a friend from a foe. Non-Alignment is neither practical nor relevant today as it never was even at the time when it was first conceived. India had to look out for international support (which came from the US) during its war with China.

However, to say that US foreign policy is something that India must stand by is not agreeable. - Take a case like Iraq for example, understandably, the US drove the world to conflict in its last attack to take down Saddam Hussein. US also cannot be trusted in its relationship with Pakistan. I do not know much the US needs India - it is difficult to access, but we do know that the the US needs Pakistan badly. Hence any efforts by the US to support India's strategic interest in Afghanistan will be vehemently opposed by Pakistan. Definitely, the US would not want to derail its broader Central & South Asia agenda for India sake.

I can see India as looking upon the US as a Great Britain with a different name.There will come a time in the future when India will have to take sides. It doesn't take a foreign policy guru (no pun intended) to see that there are lines and partnerships being drawn up.
This massing of allies, global financial crisis, far reaching geopolitical conflicts (hot and cold) is like a stack of domino's ready to fall at any moment. A global conflict is going to happen. If India thinks she will hedge her bets and play both sides of the field she will pay a price for betting against the US.

What else is new? EPIC FAIL

I know that, Ranjan Mathai, India's ambassador to France, will be the next foreign secretary, succeeding Nirupama Rao. Mathai, a 1974-batch IFS officer, will assume from August 1 and will be there for a term of two years, official spokesperson Vishnu Prakash said. After completing post graduate studies in Political Science at the University of Poona, Mathai joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1974. He has served in Indian embassies in Vienna, Colombo, Washington, Tehran and Brussels. As Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi between January 1995 to February 1998, he headed the division dealing with India's relations with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Maldives.