UPA's West Asia policy hostage to ‘Muslim vote' :WIKI

[Kinetic]

You can play the fine line, but when you need an ally then you see none of Muslim allies will come to your aid, they will side with Pakistan 100%. Can you show many examples of them siding with INida?

He is always playing religious fanaticism in all threads.

This post has been reported.

 

[gulte]

^^ I didn't see any fanaticism in his comment, its true that no muslim country will be on our side in case of war with Pakistan.

 

[alphamale]

i m not against UPA's representation of muslims but i think UPA goes overboard sometimes in such issues.

 

[Kinetic]

^^ I didn't see any fanaticism in his comment, its true that no muslim country will be on our side in case of war with Pakistan.

There is no Muslim country will be on Pakistan's side as well. That guy is playing this religious hatred card in other threads as well.

 

[LaBong]

The veto of troops to Iraq was more to do with India's logistic inability to support such huge number of troops on far-off places and support to Saddam was based on Saddam's unstinting support to India on the Kashmir issue inside OIC and elsewhere. Nothing to do with Muslim vote and btw how many Muslims vote for BJP in the first place. ?

That's the point EjazR also is making, that Muslim votebank isn't the reason behind India's West Asia policy. It's solely based on the interests of India which the US diplomat seem to find hard to digest.

 

[gulte]

There is no Muslim country will be on Pakistan's side as well. That guy is playing this religious hatred card in other threads as well.

On which basis you have come to conclusion that Muslim countries won't help pakistan in case of war. Iran was friend of India, still it helped pakistan in many wars against India.


Excerpts from
Enduring Lessons From Pakistan?s 1965 India War - International Analyst Network

3. Cherish Our Friends

Pakistan’s friends are those who came to our help in 1965 and 1971. It is Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, Indonesia, UAE, Jordan, and several other nations, in Europe and Asia, which came to Pakistan’s help when it really counted.

Iran proved in 1965 that it is a strategic depth for Pakistan. The sectarian angle [Shia/Sunni] never played a role in the relationship. Shia-majority Iran, so to speak, was the first country in the world to recognize and offer direct support to Pakistan Independence Movement and later accord diplomatic recognition to independent Pakistan. Unfortunately, an inexperienced government in Tehran after 1979, bent on meddling in neighboring countries by ‘exporting’ the revolution, created an unnecessary tension in the Pakistani-Iranian relationship [and also in Iran’s relations with its other neighbors]. Compare that to the past. Since 1947 and until 1979, Iran and Pakistan enjoyed a natural strong bond. The ‘revolution export’ project alarmed Pakistan and Iran’s other neighboring nations pushed them into buying American recipes for containing Iran. The revolution ‘export’ project ended after 1990 as Iran’s revolution matured, but the legacy left a permanent mark. At times, Iran played on Pakistani insecurities by cozying up to India. Islamabad on its part blundered by going along with US policies on Iran without respecting the deep-seated and centuries-old Pak-Iranian relations. Iran’s support to Pakistan in the 1965 war offers Pakistanis a lesson: To cultivate and strengthen relations with the people of Iran regardless of the type of government in Tehran. This should be a strategic priority for Pakistani governments and policymakers.

China, in a spectacular show of support, moved its army to the border with Pakistan during the 1965 war, sending shockwaves through New Delhi, which was still smarting from a defeat at the hands of the formidable People’s Liberation Army in 1962. Again, after the installation of a US proxy government in Islamabad in April 2008, some key figures in that government tried to damage Sino-Pakistani relations. Also in 2008 Beijing remained without a Pakistani ambassador for months, creating an unfortunate precedence in the bilateral ties between close allies. Unfortunately, even during China-friendly governments in Islamabad, Pakistan has failed to take its relations with China to the next levels. There are hardly any Chinese language experts in the Pakistani government, no emphasis on teaching Chinese language in Pakistani universities, no joint cultural programs, and not even an exchange program for pop and rock stars from both nations to link the younger generation. Since Pakistani political parties lack visionary leaders, the Sino-Pakistani relationship suffers inexplicable negligence from the Pakistani side. This runs counter to the lessons from the 1965 war.

Saudi Arabia, like China and Iran, almost joined the war on the side of Pakistan in 1965. And like China, Riyadh was shunned by the new pro-US government in Islamabad in 2008. For the first time, a Saudi ambassador was refused a farewell meeting by the Pakistani president in 2009, again creating an unfortunate precedence between two close allies. During relief operations, the Saudi ambassador was quoted by Pakistani reporters as saying he was disappointed the Pakistani government and media chose to highlight US aid when his country was the first responder and the most generous one, aside from 23 US helicopters and cargo planes.

 

[gulte]

There is no Muslim country will be on Pakistan's side as well. That guy is playing this religious hatred card in other threads as well.

Strategy requires all parameters to be factored in, we just can't shy away just because it sounds unpalatable. After all this is defense forum.

 

[Ammyy]

UPA's West Asia policy hostage to ‘Muslim vote' :WIKI

The United Progressive Alliance government's policy towards West Asia is dictated by its anxiety to keep the “politically influential Muslim vote bloc” in good humour, thus forcing it to walk a “tight rope” and refrain from engaging “too deeply” with the region. This is the recurring assessment sent to headquarters by confidential U.S. Embassy cables, accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks. New Delhi's reactions to Hamas's election victory in 2006, to Israel's attacks on Lebanon later that year, and to its air strikes on Gaza in 2008 are all interpreted through this lens.

‘Gutless’

Communications to Washington from senior American diplomats in the New Delhi Embassy constantly portray India's West Asia policy as being hostage to the Muslim factor in domestic politics. In its bid not to antagonise Muslim voters, the cables explained, the government was forced to play down its “strategic relationship” with Israel.

In one raw cable dated March 31, 2006 (58913: confidential), Ambassador David Mulford characterised India's public position on its relations with Israel as “gutless” and lacking in “moral clarity.” “The underlying straddle of meek statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict combined with full-steam-ahead engagement with Israel on practical and strategic matters,” he wrote scathingly, “is unlikely to change. We should not expect any public courage from India anytime soon when it comes to condemning Hamas or reacting on [Ehud] Olmert's recent victory. Pragmatism trumps moral clarity in Delhi's Middle East policy.”

In Mr. Mulford's view, India had “chosen to remain silent” on Mr. Olmert's victory in order “to avoid ruffling Muslim sentiments.” He added: “India will wait until other nations voice their opinions and only then may decide to speak up, if forced or if advantageous to do so, a feature typical of the GOI when it comes to reacting particularly about Middle Eastern issues, given the importance of the Muslim vote bank to the ruling Congress party.”

In a cable dated August 4, 2006 (73697: confidential), a senior U.S. diplomat, Geoff Pyatt, wrote that Indian condemnation of Israeli military actions in Lebanon and Gaza was an attempt to “manage” the Muslim anger over the issue, “conveniently overlooking the increasingly tight security and technology relationship between the two countries.” Another cable, dated December 29, 2008 (184997: confidential), attributed India's strong reaction to Israeli attacks in Gaza to “public consumption.” It was in keeping with “India's past practice of publicly condemning Israeli actions for public consumption, yet privately protecting healthy bilateral relations.”

“The Government of India again walks a tightrope influenced by its election cycle,” the Embassy cable summed up. “It must convey to Israel that it understands Israel's current plight while doing its diplomatic duty to condemn what is seen by many here as oppressive tactics. From time to time Muslim leaders in India organize protests when they feel the GOI has not taken a strong enough stance against Israel during heightened periods of violence, and it is likely that by quickly condemning the air strikes, the Indian government felt it could preempt such demonstrations.”

The Hindu : News / The India Cables : West Asia policy hostage to ‘Muslim vote'

what else you expecting with a slave PM and his firangi master

 

[EjazR]

In this particular case the words of David Mulford were clearly hinting Diggy Singh's pointed reference to Right wing groups being behind the murder of Late.Hemant Karkare and I do believe there is some merit in his assertion.

There is no reference to Digvijay Singh, Hemant Karakare or Hindu extremist groups in this cable. Its about Foreign policy not domestic policy, so this does not apply here.

I dont believe this, Iran upgrading our submarines. Any link ?

India upgraded Iranian submarines. This would clearly be perceived as a hostile act by the US and Israel because our upgrades to Iranian subs extended their lifespan and operation in warm waters.

More details here
India-Iran Defence Cooperation

The veto of troops to Iraq was more to do with India's logistic inability to support such huge number of troops on far-off places and support to Saddam was based on Saddam's unstinting support to India on the Kashmir issue inside OIC and elsewhere. Nothing to do with Muslim vote and btw how many Muslims vote for BJP in the first place. ?

When Poland and other island nations in the Pacific provided troops, there is no question about logistic ability. It was about building up the Coalition of the willing .

The heavy fighting was always to be done by the US and UK. It was forces after the invasions where Indian troops would be involved on top of the international "support" to an illegal invasion.


And your last sentence is precisely my point. Mulford here says UPAs foreing policy is hostage to Muslim vote. Its not, just like NDA's foreign policy was not hostage to Muslim vote but it still "supported" Muslim countries like Iraq and Iran which were hostile to both Israel and the US.

Infact, the the current UPA has more close relationship with the GCC countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE than with Iran which arguably is more inline with US and Israeli interests. Again where does the "Muslim vote" come into play here?

Hence Mulford is clearly not analyzing the dominant reasons for the FP decisions that UPA took and instead is just backing on the "muslim vote" crutch.

You might have a bias against the UPA but when it comes to GoI foreign policy decisions its pretty much bipartisan. Congress PM Rao actually started relations with Israel and Iran and the BJP worked on improving it.

Then when it was in Indian interests to cut down its relation with Iran (nuke deal), it did that and built up its relation with the GCC bloc (again probably under the US umbrella).

 

[EjazR]

what else you expecting with a slave PM and his firangi master

But the article proves the opposite really, he is not listening to his "firangi" master and the firangi master is throwing a hissy fit.

 

[EjazR]

^^ I didn't see any fanaticism in his comment, its true that no muslim country will be on our side in case of war with Pakistan.

The most recent cases of Kargil War and Mumbai attacks actually prove you wrong. In both cases, almost all countries including Muslim countries took India's position of (1) withdrawing Pakistani troops on the other side of LoC (2) bringing the perpetrators in Pakistan to justice.

And the change in almost every country in the world from holding a referundum under UN resolutions to resolving Kashmir dispute bilaterally between India and Pakistan is much closer to India's position than Pakistan's.

 

[KS]

That's the point EjazR also is making, that Muslim votebank isn't the reason behind India's West Asia policy. It's solely based on the interests of India which the US diplomat seem to find hard to digest.

Actually that serves my POV as well. India-Israel relations were much more active during the NDA regime than it was during the UPA regimes because the NDA was not a hostage to Muslim votebank.

 

[KS]

There is no reference to Digvijay Singh, Hemant Karakare or Hindu extremist groups in this cable. Its about Foreign policy not domestic policy, so this does not apply here.

Shoot, I confused this with another cable , again by Mulford, attacking the Congress for utilising 26/11 for political gains. Thanks for clarification.

When Poland and other island nations in the Pacific provided troops, there is no question about logistic ability. It was about building up the Coalition of the willing .

I stand with my logistics part because as members of NATO, POland would have no problem in logostics because they can utilise NATO transport planes while I dont think India has the same luxury.

And your last sentence is precisely my point. Mulford here says UPAs foreing policy is hostage to Muslim vote. Its not, just like NDA's foreign policy was not hostage to Muslim vote but it still "supported" Muslim countries like Iraq and Iran which were hostile to both Israel and the US.

Infact, the the current UPA has more close relationship with the GCC countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE than with Iran which arguably is more inline with US and Israeli interests. Again where does the "Muslim vote" come into play here?

Hence Mulford is clearly not analyzing the dominant reasons for the FP decisions that UPA took and instead is just backing on the "muslim vote" crutch.

You might have a bias against the UPA but when it comes to GoI foreign policy decisions its pretty much bipartisan. Congress PM Rao actually started relations with Israel and Iran and the BJP worked on improving it.

Then when it was in Indian interests to cut down its relation with Iran (nuke deal), it did that and built up its relation with the GCC bloc (again probably under the US umbrella).

You raise valid points - and sentences like these do justify your stance;

Pragmatism trumps moral clarity in Delhi's Middle East policy.”

“India will wait until other nations voice their opinions and only then may decide to speak up, if forced or if advantageous to do so, a feature typical of the GOI when it comes to reacting particularly about Middle Eastern issues,

But I want situations like these to be ironed off ;

India had “chosen to remain silent” on Mr. Olmert's victory in order “to avoid ruffling Muslim sentiments.”

The Israeli diplomat told Mr. Mulford that the Israelis refused to issue the customary post-visit joint statement after the Indian delegation “insisted” that it should be with the dateline Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem.

Mr. Magen “confirmed that the Israeli Embassy had been the source for a recent front page story and editorial in the pro-BJP Pioneer criticizing India for its failure to acknowledge the Gaza withdrawal.”

There is nothing wrong in congratulating a democratically elected Prime Minister firstly and secondly if you can condemn vociferously Israeli war in Gaza then be prepared to welcome their withdrawal from Gaza also.

After all Israel has much more to offer to India (ofcourse for cash only !) than Palestine can ever offer. Be even to both.

 

[gulte]

The most recent cases of Kargil War and Mumbai attacks actually prove you wrong. In both cases, almost all countries including Muslim countries took India's position of (1) withdrawing Pakistani troops on the other side of LoC (2) bringing the perpetrators in Pakistan to justice.

And the change in almost every country in the world from holding a referundum under UN resolutions to resolving Kashmir dispute bilaterally between India and Pakistan is much closer to India's position than Pakistan's.

Any links corroborating your assertion. On the other hand, consistently blocking India's entry into OIC speaks otherwise.

 

[justanobserver]

Any links corroborating your assertion. On the other hand, consistently blocking India's entry into OIC speaks otherwise.

Why should India be in the OIC ?