Why India does not have a vibrant strategic culture

[Wickerman]

Hinduism is the common factor you can notice throughout India our religion holding our nation together. Muslims/Christians rise in India would be threat of Indian unity for sure. Save Hinduism Save India.

Its secularism that holds India together. Hinduism doesnt. If you go by Hinduism then you'd also be supporting the caste system which basically divides people, doesnt unite.

 

[Machete]

Its secularism that holds India together. Hinduism doesnt. If you go by Hinduism then you'd also be supporting the caste system which basically divides people, doesnt unite.

If India is not secular means it will segregate? I am supporting hindu(means dharmic religion) secularism not other types. Just think if 60% muslims in India what would be our future.

 

[Wickerman]

If India is not secular means it will segregate? I am supporting hindu(means dharmic religion) secularism not other types. Just think if 60% muslims in India what would be our future.

There is no danger of 60 percent muslims and all that. I am just saying religion does not matter. And hindus are not the most Unified people of all or whatever. IF you leave it to just Hindus, they will also divide based on castes or whatever. Its India's secular policy that matters. And secularism is not a Hindu principle.

 

[Machete]

There is no danger of 60 percent muslims and all that. I am just saying religion does not matter. And hindus are not the most Unified people of all or whatever. IF you leave it to just Hindus, they will also divide based on castes or whatever. Its India's secular policy that matters. And secularism is not a Hindu principle.

New comer.... don't argue randomly I end my discussion here.

 

[Ticker]

The US believes that a multi-polar world is inherently unstable as compared to a bi-polar world. Therefore, the US is deliberately working for a bi-polar world than multi-polar environment. However, for this to happen, they are helping to establish a balance of power at continental level in Asia and at regional levels as well within various Asian regions.

India may just be a provider of balance of power and not a pole of the bi-polarity which the world is heading towards. Robert Kaplan says it is a balance of power on steroids and that is why the expansion of Indian Navy is not being hindered by the US.

Spykeman said the domination of America in the Caribbean ensured American dominance in the western hemisphere. So if China dominates South China Sea, it will dominate the Indian Ocean and therefore Eurasia. That’s what the US with ensuring the balance of power in the region would endeavour China to not be successful with. Containment of China therefore is so important for the US though US would not want to call it containment.

The thing to understand here is that the US has a forward looking strategic partnership with India in all but name. Its not called that, but that’s what it is. It can not be called a strategic partnership because the Indians demand and want to remain neutral as they were non-aligned once. They would tilt towards US as compared to China. The nuclear pact with India raised India’s stature in all but name.

I will quote Robert Kaplan here again, where he said in one of his talks in the US, that India is the only country where George Bush could go and take all his intellectuals – intellectuals like George Bush.

I don’t want to make it very lengthy, but all I want to say is that one does not see India, at the grand strategic level, adjusting itself to the realities as exist on ground and the US is again and again saying it very loudly. This speaks of a lack of vibrant strategic space and a culture where one only hears about how big India is going to be and not sound and sane voices telling India about where India stands now and how should India adjust itself to the ensuing future in real-politik terms.

Yes the Indians can kill me now.

 

[Wickerman]

New comer.... don't argue randomly I end my discussion here.

Either contribute something fruitful to the discussion. Dont bring religion into it. If Hinduism is widespread in India that will bring "strategic thought and unity"? Well, India has Hinuism as its majority where is the strategic thought and solidarity? Who are the most divided people in India? Where does the caste system stem from? All that comes from hinduism. So go educate yourself kiddo, before you bring some nonsense into something that is totally unrelated.

 

[Wickerman]

The US believes that a multi-polar world is inherently unstable as compared to a bi-polar world. Therefore, the US is deliberately working for a bi-polar world than multi-polar environment. However, for this to happen, they are helping to establish a balance of power at continental level in Asia and at regional levels as well within various Asian regions.

India may just be a provider of balance of power and not a pole of the bi-polarity which the world is heading towards. Robert Kaplan says it is a balance of power on steroids and that is why the expansion of Indian Navy is not being hindered by the US.

Spykeman said the domination of America in the Caribbean ensured American dominance in the western hemisphere. So if China dominates South China Sea, it will dominate the Indian Ocean and therefore Eurasia. That’s what the US with ensuring the balance of power in the region would endeavour China to not be successful with. Containment of China therefore is so important for the US though US would not want to call it containment.

The thing to understand here is that the US has a forward looking strategic partnership with India in all but name. Its not called that, but that’s what it is. It can not be called a strategic partnership because the Indians demand and want to remain neutral as they were non-aligned once. They would tilt towards US as compared to China. The nuclear pact with India raised India’s stature in all but name.

I will quote Robert Kaplan here again, where he said in one of his talks in the US, that India is the only country where George Bush could go and take all his intellectuals – intellectuals like George Bush.

I don’t want to make it very lengthy, but all I want to say is that one does not see India, at the grand strategic level, adjusting itself to the realities as exist on ground and the US is again and again saying it very loudly. This speaks of a lack of vibrant strategic space and a culture where one only hears about how big India is going to be and not sound and sane voices telling India about where India stands now and how should India adjust itself to the ensuing future in real-politik terms.

Yes the Indians can kill me now.

India will be big economically and militarily, but it wont play a great role in world politics as long as it does not politically adjust to changes, and politically approach situations and deal with them.

BTW if you read that article it says the strategic autonomy India seeks, is synonymous with not "non alignment" but with flexible realism. So realistically speaking, India's strategy right now is to both side with the US and not side with it. This is what frustrates the US. But, this relationship between India and the US has just emerged, over the last few years. It will take a few more to mature. The Indian political leadership does not trust the US completely, given their cold war era stance with Pakistan and their present engagement with Pakistan.

So in the 21st century what I foresee for the short to mid term future is, stronger relations with the US, while maintaining a facade of non alignment, and pursuing bilateral relations with everyone as much as possible. This will bring India much needed military and civilian tech and equipment, increased investments and would help India counter China's influence in the region. I think that is all India can hope to achieve, given the fact that the US will undoubtedly lead the 21st century.

 

[Ticker]

I agree with you. However, India has to adjust to this reality as the future world is not likely to emerge in a Multi-Polar environment, because apparently, both the US and China seems to agree to this and are working towards the same goal. This means that like what BJP talked about India Shining, the India emerging as a big power syndrome may not emerge any time soon and is also rather long way off, if at all.

But, however so the world emerges, it is India's future strategy that has to guide it through and frankly, I don't see any such strategic thoughts emerging as of now. I haven't read anything of the kind so far by any Indian writer or analyst.

 

[INDIC]

I agree with you. However, India has to adjust to this reality as the future world is not likely to emerge in a Multi-Polar environment, because apparently, both the US and China seems to agree to this and are working towards the same goal. This means that like what BJP talked about India Shining, the India emerging as a big power syndrome may not emerge any time soon and is also rather long way off, if at all.

But, however so the world emerges emerge, it is India's future strategy that has to guide it through and frankly, I don't see any such strategic thoughts emerging as of now. I haven't read anything of the kind so far by any Indian writer or analyst.

You are missing another important player Russia.

 

[cyphercide]

India doesn't necessarily require to evolve into a 'strategic culture' as we do not face existential threats of the magnitude faced by nations like Israel. However, what India could do with is a clearly identifiable strategic mission statement for dealing with future paradigm shifts in foreign policy. Consider China for instance; Are tomorrow's Chinese leaders, products of a single-child family and hence prone to the Little Emperor Syndrome, going to prove more hawkish and difficult to deal within the existing mechanisms? Also to note would be our own evolution in diplomacy and strategic thinking.

 

[Machete]

Either contribute something fruitful to the discussion. Dont bring religion into it. If Hinduism is widespread in India that will bring "strategic thought and unity"? Well, India has Hinuism as its majority where is the strategic thought and solidarity? Who are the most divided people in India? Where does the caste system stem from? All that comes from hinduism. So go educate yourself kiddo, before you bring some nonsense into something that is totally unrelated.

Are you mad? your post clearly showing that your are an ignorant. In PDF no thread end without touching the religion, first read respective thread and then write comment kid. Hindus created caste system not hinduism/vedas , I talking about hinduism.

 

[INDIC]

I agree with you. However, India has to adjust to this reality as the future world is not likely to emerge in a Multi-Polar environment, because apparently, both the US and China seems to agree to this and are working towards the same goal. This means that like what BJP talked about India Shining, the India emerging as a big power syndrome may not emerge any time soon and is also rather long way off, if at all.

But, however so the world emerges emerge, it is India's future strategy that has to guide it through and frankly, I don't see any such strategic thoughts emerging as of now. I haven't read anything of the kind so far by any Indian writer or analyst.

We have no big ambition, just a UNSC permanent seat is enough for us

 

[Ticker]

We have no big ambition, just a UNSC permanent seat is enough for us

yeah sure ...... ha ha ha

You are missing another important player Russia.

Abhi Eurasian Hinterland ki jang to baqi hai meray dost.

 

[INDIC]

yeah sure ...... ha ha ha

Are you in a doubt or a shock.

Abhi Eurasian Hinterland ki jang to baqi hai meray dost.

kaun si jung.

 

[Dushmann]

lack of vibrant strategic culture-
caste system is significantly responsible for it.