Why America wants India as its second fiddle
WHILE talking to a large gathering of Indians at Indian southern city of Chinnai on 20th July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passionately prompted India to lead Asia and Asia Pacific. She urged India to be more assertive in working out the regional equations and shape the Asia Pacific dynamics of the 21st century. She also called upon India to assume the role of an Asian leadership. The idea of nudging India in leadership role at this point of time when India struggles to find its true direction amid confused poverty, education, human rights, Hindu fundamentalism, extremist and separatist indicators, has not moved India to seriously adhere to Clintons advice. The other regional powers too, weary of Indias growing tilt into acceptance of subordinate role to Americans have shown concern on Clinton inviting India to play second fiddle to Americans in the region.
China reacted coolly to the speech and expressed its view that India might never accept a subordinate role to the United States and would continue to pursue an independent foreign policy. Pakistan was more vocal on Clintons diplomatic overture as its Prime Minister termed the American nudge as simply unwarranted. Russia did not voice concern as its analysis view India as a country that most of its time remains bogged down in resolving the dynamics volatile political and security environment, nowhere near to even consider itself capable of handling the responsibilities. Besides due to internal divides on various issues, India remains an uneasy neighbor for its neighboring countries as it pursues their subjugation.
Nevertheless, Clintons statement did generate a little debate amongst Indian think tanks. Various views thus generated implied that America has made it imperative to counter Chinese growing clout at regional and International level and has thus chosen India as a frontline state for achieving its designs on China despite the fact that it would start a cold war between China and India that would ultimately be detrimental for regional security and development.
While writing for Foreign Policy magazine Raja Mohan, a senior analyst at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi said that, While India was keen to increase its weight in global governance it would only do so on its own terms and its own pace. India is prepared to engage on these issues and participate more fully in global decision making bodies on the basis of its own self-interest, but is not prepared to take tests from anyone. India has a long way to go before it secures its internal dynamics that threaten to disintegrate the country itself. Expecting India to become a world leader or a trust worthy U.S. ally cannot be comprehended by nascent Indians. History says that Americans wherever they venture simply cause conflict while it portrays itself as a peace maker.
Let us examine what prompted Clinton to encourage India for a leadership role in Asia Pacific and Asia itself. The world is fast transiting to a more multi-polar global order, a trend that poses huge risks to U.S. interests around the world. As the time goes by more and more countries are acting independently to exercise their influence elsewhere politically and economically. The trend has only increased after repeated failures of US military campaigns overseas none of which achieved the desired objectives. With downward spiraling of the US economy, it is becoming increasingly constrained to exercise and exert its influence. US thinks that that good relationship with India has become mandatory to secure its regional interests in the coming decades.
The United States has evaluated India as a partner whose interests match that of its own and experts India to complement and extend US capabilities in the Asian region and beyond.
India is content with its status of a leading nation of the third world. It does not foresee itself as qualified or good enough to be able to contribute towards worldly affairs. Its inability to maintain internal cohesion, control poverty, rampant corruption, black money deposited in Switzerland being funneled to create dissentions at home and abroad frequent human rights violations in Kashmir and elsewhere in the restive North Eastern regions where insurgency is blooming, does not place it anywhere near the status of a regional leader especially so when China has galloped much ahead encompassing all facets of a powerful state.
On the economic front it can be touted to be doing well but still that is not enough to flex its muscles as a big power. Therefore, the US sponsorship of India to lead Asia and Asia Pacific and act as its proxy will be counterproductive. Besides, China and Pakistan in the neighborhood and Japan not faraway, the American incitements will result in more chaotic Asia and Asia Pacific
Listen to your neighbours nots wasps
WHILE talking to a large gathering of Indians at Indian southern city of Chinnai on 20th July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton passionately prompted India to lead Asia and Asia Pacific. She urged India to be more assertive in working out the regional equations and shape the Asia Pacific dynamics of the 21st century. She also called upon India to assume the role of an Asian leadership. The idea of nudging India in leadership role at this point of time when India struggles to find its true direction amid confused poverty, education, human rights, Hindu fundamentalism, extremist and separatist indicators, has not moved India to seriously adhere to Clintons advice. The other regional powers too, weary of Indias growing tilt into acceptance of subordinate role to Americans have shown concern on Clinton inviting India to play second fiddle to Americans in the region.
China reacted coolly to the speech and expressed its view that India might never accept a subordinate role to the United States and would continue to pursue an independent foreign policy. Pakistan was more vocal on Clintons diplomatic overture as its Prime Minister termed the American nudge as simply unwarranted. Russia did not voice concern as its analysis view India as a country that most of its time remains bogged down in resolving the dynamics volatile political and security environment, nowhere near to even consider itself capable of handling the responsibilities. Besides due to internal divides on various issues, India remains an uneasy neighbor for its neighboring countries as it pursues their subjugation.
Nevertheless, Clintons statement did generate a little debate amongst Indian think tanks. Various views thus generated implied that America has made it imperative to counter Chinese growing clout at regional and International level and has thus chosen India as a frontline state for achieving its designs on China despite the fact that it would start a cold war between China and India that would ultimately be detrimental for regional security and development.
While writing for Foreign Policy magazine Raja Mohan, a senior analyst at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi said that, While India was keen to increase its weight in global governance it would only do so on its own terms and its own pace. India is prepared to engage on these issues and participate more fully in global decision making bodies on the basis of its own self-interest, but is not prepared to take tests from anyone. India has a long way to go before it secures its internal dynamics that threaten to disintegrate the country itself. Expecting India to become a world leader or a trust worthy U.S. ally cannot be comprehended by nascent Indians. History says that Americans wherever they venture simply cause conflict while it portrays itself as a peace maker.
Let us examine what prompted Clinton to encourage India for a leadership role in Asia Pacific and Asia itself. The world is fast transiting to a more multi-polar global order, a trend that poses huge risks to U.S. interests around the world. As the time goes by more and more countries are acting independently to exercise their influence elsewhere politically and economically. The trend has only increased after repeated failures of US military campaigns overseas none of which achieved the desired objectives. With downward spiraling of the US economy, it is becoming increasingly constrained to exercise and exert its influence. US thinks that that good relationship with India has become mandatory to secure its regional interests in the coming decades.
The United States has evaluated India as a partner whose interests match that of its own and experts India to complement and extend US capabilities in the Asian region and beyond.
India is content with its status of a leading nation of the third world. It does not foresee itself as qualified or good enough to be able to contribute towards worldly affairs. Its inability to maintain internal cohesion, control poverty, rampant corruption, black money deposited in Switzerland being funneled to create dissentions at home and abroad frequent human rights violations in Kashmir and elsewhere in the restive North Eastern regions where insurgency is blooming, does not place it anywhere near the status of a regional leader especially so when China has galloped much ahead encompassing all facets of a powerful state.
On the economic front it can be touted to be doing well but still that is not enough to flex its muscles as a big power. Therefore, the US sponsorship of India to lead Asia and Asia Pacific and act as its proxy will be counterproductive. Besides, China and Pakistan in the neighborhood and Japan not faraway, the American incitements will result in more chaotic Asia and Asia Pacific
Listen to your neighbours nots wasps
