US tells India, drop dead

Rediff ^ | March 28, 2005 | Kanchan Gupta

[Gengis Khan]

US tells India, drop dead

March 28, 2005

A friend, usually upbeat about India-US relations, sent me an angry mail over the weekend after President George Bush called up Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the evening of March 25 to inform him that the US had decided to supply F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an interview to The Washington Post, "dismissed concerns" about the fallout of the American decision. The mail reads:

"lovely easter gift to india from the us.

moral: proliferate nukes, threaten us interests everywhere, be terror hub, and get rewarded for it. this has been north korea's experience, china's experience, saudi arabia's experience, and pakistan's experience.

suck up to the us, desperately crave its goodwill, allow its odious conversion machine to dictate terms to you, and get slapped on the face. this is india's experience.

simple solution for india: proliferate nuke and missile technology to anybody who wants it, especially taiwan and japan. this will immediately get american respect, much as pokhran-ii did."

The issues that arise from USA's decision to strengthen Pakistan's strike power, I feel, are much larger than merely seeking or getting "American respect." A nation whose civilisational history stretches back to 5,000 years, that is more than Americans can count without a Texas Instruments TI-83, and whose billion-plus population is not dependent on American wheat surplus of the PL 480 variety, can do without "American respect." Thank you very much, but America is welcome to stuff its "respect" in a hot dog.

The larger concerns are two-fold. First, Washington's mollycoddling of Pakistan, a rogue state that has not only proliferated cross-border jihadi terrorism but also spawned an underground bazaar where it has been hawking weapons of mass destruction to other rogue states. Second, the arms race that will follow America's dubious deal, with both India and Pakistan upping their defence expenditure at the cost of social welfare spending.

A third aspect that merits comment is the glib manner in which Rice, during the joint press conference she addressed along with Minister for External Affairs Natwar Singh during her brief stopover in New Delhi earlier this month, waved away any 'announcement' of an American deal on F-16s for Pakistan in the immediate future. Perhaps time and space are extremely elastic for those who wax eloquent on "absent morals" of others.

It is immaterial whether or not Pakistan has been assisting the US in pursuing its "war against terror" -- ask those who are involved in the war, including intelligence operatives, and they will tell you Islamabad has been leading Washington down the garden path -- what is material is that India must protect its own national interest. There is little evidence to show that Pakistan has given up the path of terror; nor is there reason to believe that Islamabad is genuinely interested in peace.

If you have any doubts, look at the daily acts of terror in Jammu and Kashmir; the insidious growth of ISI modules in the Northeast; and, the export of jehadi fundamentalism to India via Nepal. Nothing has changed in the last one year, never mind peaceniks who are making silly asses of themselves.

The absurd claim put out by unnamed sources in the US State Department that the F-16s form part of American assistance to Pakistan to wage war on terrorism is as laughable as the lollypop of advanced fighter jets (F-18s, no less) and nuclear power reactors that has been offered to India. "What the Americans have announced is the actual, physical delivery of F-16s to Pakistan and a bunch of nice promises for India," a foreign office official in New Delhi has said underscoring the absurdity.

No less absurd is the claim made by "senior administration officials" at a background briefing for "select journalists" that the military assistance to Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf was aimed at ensuring "a fully democratic, economically promising Pakistan, that feels secure and is thus at peace with its neighbours."

The officials might as well have added that it is inconsequential the US's favourite tin pot dictator is to blame for the runaway basement bomb programmes in North Korea, Iran and Libya, among others. Boys will be boys, you see, naughty and mischievous; what's a component here and a blueprint there?

Those nations that have committed the mistake of trusting the US have come to grief, and how. It will be disastrous if India makes a similar mistake. If the UPA government believes in what it says, that India is a sovereign nation free to make its own choices, then it should not touch the American promise with a bargepole.

The Pakistanis can seek satisfaction in saving 5,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin Corp, Indians need not lose sleep over the plight of unemployed workers in Texas. In fact, it will be fun to watch Bush and Rice squirm, which they shall, if Manmohan Singh and his team look through their alleged offer and go ahead with selecting the next generation, multi-purpose jets from what has been offered by the French, the Swedes and the Russians.

If they choose to be charmed by the Americans, then India might as well say goodbye to its sovereign identity and become another client state of the US like Pakistan has become.

PS: At the launch of journalist Wilson John's book Pakistan's Nuclear Underworld: An Investigation, a devastating expose of how A Q Khan and his bosses in khaki went around hawking nuclear know-how for a fistful of dollars, in New Delhi last week, a former foreign secretary, mindful of the presence of two diplomats from the US mission in the audience, charged the Americans with "doubletalk and duplicity" on illicit nuclear proliferation by the Pakistanis.

Later, one of the American diplomats, fuming over being shown up so bluntly, accosted him and told him that he had been "offensive and insulting to my country" and "you could have been more nuanced without being inaccurate." Retorted the former diplomat: "We are a free country. We can say what we want… I couldn't care less for pretensions of the American empire."

Let's order a second hot dog!

[ttsmi]

Mulford also said that many of the legal hurdles which have prevented the US from actively supporting India still remain aka long way to go till we reach that point.

[Wiz]

India (you now conveniently forget in the light of new found friendship with Pakistan) was the first country to declare "unconditional" support in you war in Afganistan. Your country chose Pakistan.

Let me change the question to make it more clear. Did India fight against Taliban in Afghanistan or the Taliban in the hideouts in Pakistan? If there was unconditional support, why were our troops unable to drive through India and through Kasmir area to enter Afghanistan? Does India recognize US could only rely on Pakistan to send force from ground, even it was rejected? What do you see around Afghanistan other than Pakistan? The only other countries with access from sea were Iran and China. Yes, Pakistan did not allow US forces to drive through Pakistan, but at least hunted down Taliban hideouts even it was not enough. Pakistan has considered at least to send troops to Iraq under UN supervision, even though it was rejected. What about India? Yes, Pakistan had not done enough but at least done something that deserves F-16s. Why is it wrong to reward for the help? Do you trust countries that do not reward for help?

[Gengis Khan]

Check out this  article:

The US comes out fighting with F-16s

 

The most important part:

But many Indian strategists and former senior officials are not so sanguine. Some note that the US has essentially offered a tangible weapons system to Pakistan, while offering some nice-sounding promises to India, which may or may not develop into real gains. Noting that one of the items seemingly on offer was the sale of American nuclear power plants to India, one observer asked - "Will Ms [Condoleezza] Rice and her staff be willing to do the heavy lifting in Congress and within the numerous non-proliferation agencies within the American bureaucracy to get approval for this? I don't think so." India has energy needs now that cannot be fulfilled by mere talks, he added.

Some reports also suggest similar feelings in private in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The Hindu newspaper quoted unnamed MEA officials as saying, "It is possible that some of the promises may be transformed into reality. But at this point, one cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. Only tangible outcomes count, and that is the transfer of the [F-16] planes to Islamabad."

 

Indian and some Western strategic analysts have a different take on this point. One former senior Indian official noted to this correspondent that he did not agree with the American position that 30 to 40 F-16s were unlikely to upset India's military position vis-a-vis Pakistan. He said that such an argument missed the point: "When it comes to provoking a war with India, Pakistan has depended more on what it perceives it can get away with rather than what its war-fighting abilities really are." The argument here is that the F-16s need not arrive in Pakistan for Musharraf and other Pakistani military leaders to consider taking aggressive military actions in the disputed Kashmir region. Observers caution that Pakistani leaders are unlikely to interpret the F-16 deal in any manner other than as a reiteration of Pakistan's indispensability to Washington.

Another Western analyst, who has visited Pakistan many times, noted to this author that soon after Indian troops backed off war threats in 2002, Pakistani officials were thankful for the American role in diffusing the crisis without Pakistani loss of face. However, he was shocked that during a later meeting with senior Pakistani army officers he found that they had coaxed themselves into believing that it was India's "cowardice" that led to their pull-back. The analyst also noted with alarm that many senior Pakistani military strategists still subscribe to the theory that Pakistanis are a "superior martial race" as opposed to the largely Hindu Indian army, which they perceive to be innately weak in resolve. The expert noted that with such attitudes, all the Pakistanis need is a small fillip to their morale and a perception of their being indispensable to American interests in order to start another military adventure with India. "At the very least, major weapons sales could spur the Pakistanis to be more aggressive with the use of jihadi groups in Kashmir," the expert maintained.

[CarrotAndStick]

I just thought I'd clarify this to those who tend to get misguided- The newspaper by the name 'The Hindu' has nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism. 'Hindu' there refers more to the geography, than the reigion.

The newspaper is often famous for its allegedly anti-Hindu views at times.

[CarrotAndStick]

reigion = religion.

[bullseye1911]

I read that too. It appears the article has a balanced view of the concerns of both sides of the issue (unlike what's spoon-fed to us by our media). I, for one, am more on the side of the former and believe that the Administration has the correct view and am inclined to support their overall goals in the reigion. As I'm neither Indian or Pakastani, I don't have the historical biases associated with previous actions. I do however, discount the positions of the "bash Bush" crowd. W values and supports India, there is no doubt. You don't have to agree with the strategy, but it appears there are some that believe the U.S. should adopt an Indian strategy over a U.S. one. Regards.

[Gunrunner2]

"The first country to offer the US assistance right after 9/11 was India. "

Ah. . .no. Egypt. Not that anyone would know from media reports, but within hours certain Egyptian officials flew to DC and began coordination/consultations and started to provide real support. . .not just words.

[Gengis Khan]

"Did India fight against Taliban in Afghanistan or the Taliban in the hideouts in Pakistan?"

---India was ready to do just that! It was the US who asked us to stay away. So be it!

"If there was unconditional support, why were our troops unable to drive through India and through Kasmir area to enter Afghanistan? "

Becoz (have a look at he map) the Indian side of Kashmir does not share a border with Afganistan. It has a border with Pakistan and China only.

"Does India recognize US could only rely on Pakistan to send force from ground, even it was rejected?"

---"even it was rejected "

"Pakistan has considered at least to send troops to Iraq under UN supervision, even though it was rejected."

---"even though it was rejected"

Wow! And you "rejected" us in favour of Pakistan.

Well, like Pakistan even we at least considered to send troops to Iraq under UN supervision, but then.... we rejected the idea!

"Why is it wrong to reward for the help? Do you trust countries that do not reward for help?"

Oh yes absolutely! Do reward them for spreading the nukes across all the rogue states that exists in the world. They richly deserve the F-16s! </sarcasm>

[Allosaurs_r_us]

In fact, what has India provided to the US for the war against Afghanistan and Iraq?

 

Here's your answer........

 

Dr Rice expressed her government's concern on the India-Iran gas pipeline. She said US Ambassador to India David Mulford had already conveyed US reservations to the Indian government.

 

By supplying Iran with the revenue this pipeline will undoubtedly produce, they are aiding and abetting Iran's conquest for nuclear weapons. If India would like to benefit from American technology perhaps it should stop aiding one of the "Axis of Evil" countries. Anyone who believes Iran is not a threat to Israel's existence is a fool. Without this revenue the Iranians would likely be more receptive to economic decisions in the EU and from the current administration.

 

It is quite apparent India is progressing as a world power all by their little lonesome. They are getting cozy with Iran in order to supply the Chinese with the oil they so desperately need. Does this look like they have American interests at heart? Hardly! China is emerging to be a major player in the world market and India wants their piece of that pie. They are in a position to better play both sides than anyone else in the world at this time, and sure look to be doing just that. Besides they are getting a more advanced fighter. Call the waaaaambulance!

 

As for Pakistan the number of F16's headed their way is not going to improve their offense in the least. It will however improve their defensive capabilities, as all nations are entitled. Pakistan, with all of it's faults has been a major player in our attempts to rid the world of Bin Laden's followers. We could not have accomplished this without their support. They certainly deserve something for their efforts. By feeding a few carrots to this ally we will reap greater benefits in the future. India on the other hand appears arrogant when it pertains to American security yet will get our more advanced fighter.

 

 

[StolarStorm]

Big deal. Most Americans aren't really happy with India either. Maybe you guys should try winning us over rather than expecting us to win you over.

[azhenfud]

"India support One China policy"

As a communist-ruled country or an emerging democracy?

[azhenfud]

"The Pakis are finally China's big time ally. And will remain so F-16s or no F-16s.

And anyway whats the difference, both China and US are arming the Pakis. Not much to choose from there."

Any plane destined for Pakistan will be reverse-engineered in China before the turkey feathers are cold.

[CompSciGuy]

I think you are protesting too much about something that yet seems unfinished. The best thing India can do is to continue to bide its time. India will be a world power, but the radical left of India will need to be silenced if India wants to be an ally with the U.S. Otherwise China will be your new buddy. It is not so easy for the U.S. to forget the history that has transpired between the U.S. and India. If impatience rules India then it will destroy whatever chance the U.S. and India have of making a strong alliance. These things don't happen overnight, and beginnings are always rocky. Just my $0.02, and for the record I don't think we should be giving Pakistan any weapon systems, but no one in government really listens much to what I think.

Cheers,

CSG

[Gengis Khan]

"Big deal. Most Americans aren't really happy with India either. Maybe you guys should try winning us over rather than expecting us to win you over."

We tried and this is what we got. At this point not many Indians would want to win you over.

[verity]

"All I can tell you is that at this moment most Indians are miffed"

Perhaps they should protest by refusing to accept further outsourcing as well as surrendering those 7-11 franchises. :-)

[Cronos]

In fact, what has India provided to the US for the war against Afghanistan and Iraq

Let's see -- the Indians were the first to offer bases to hit Afghanistan after 9/11. The moment the Pakis heard about this, they HAD to offer bases or else they knew that they would be included in the target the angry eagle (the US) had set.

[Cronos]

Your books are coming to life....

[Gengis Khan]

Not exactly protesting but presenting the "Indian" view-point. And yes Indians are protesting.

BTW- I agree with most of whatever you have said.

[azhenfud]

"---India was ready to do just that! It was the US who asked us to stay away. So be it!"

You know very well that's not totally correct - the only time India was asked to refrain was when Pakistinian territory was involved, to prevent you hot-heads from lighting each other up because of you guys' priors.

I still agree, though, selling F16's to the Paks is a mistake.