Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

INDIAN GOVERNMENT FEELS LET DOWN BY ARMITAGE VISIT
TIMES OF INDIA ^ | MAY 12, 2003 | MANOJ JOSHI

Posted on 05/11/2003 7:24:49 PM PDT by Mike_Flats

NEW DELHI: Officials and ministers are putting on a brave face, but the government feels let down by US deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage's visit last week.

Last May-June, Armitage was part of a torrent of high-level visits- British foreign secretary Jack Straw, US secretary of state Colin Powell and secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld- aimed at persuading the Vajpayee government to call off a military attack on Pakistan.

The message was similar: Musharraf had given them assurances that Pakistan would end infiltration across the Line of Control (LoC) permanently. President Bush underscored this while speaking to reporters after a cabinet meeting on May 30, 2002. Musharraf, he declared, must stop incursions across the Line of Control. "He must do so. He said he would do so. We and others are making it clear to him that he must live up to his word."

New Delhi called off the attack and redeployed its forces. But there has been no let-up in infiltration and violence, a fact that even the US acknowledges. But having succeeded in preventing Indian retribution, and getting the Indian Army back to its barracks, Armitage's message this time around was that it was not his job to give assurances. It was up to India to decide what it wanted to make of Musharraf's promises.

The Vajpayee government has no one but itself to blame for having been taken for a ride by the US. The Anglo-American officials, who came in last year, had their own military plans, but they concerned Iraq and not Pakistan. With Iraq under their belt and Indian forces back in their barracks, their focus has shifted to resolving the Israel-Palestine dispute.

There is a positive flipside to this and New Delhi can read Armitage's message another way: We are too busy elsewhere, you should not depend on us to deal with Pakistan.

Prime Minister Vajpayee is set on that course, but he has one problem. Pakistan has not abjured the military/terrorist option, and the Army is putting forward the Jamali pawn to deal with the Vajpayee diplomatic offensive.

As the Vajpayee strategy of calibrated engagement unfolds, it will find that its greatest weakness lies in the incapacity of its security forces. Unless India is able to show Pakistan that its support for terrorism will not be cost-free, there will be no movement on the negotiating table.

The problem is that despite spending Rs 70,000 crore a year on defence, Indian forces are not adequately structured to deal with this immediate military problem.

It is not a matter of political will or bravery, but of the lack of adequate instruments.

The government began a process of reforming the armed forces, but the efforts have come unstuck because of bureaucratic back-sliding and lack of adequate political leadership.

Defence minister George Fernandes and Deputy PM L K Advani have the right instincts about security, but they lack the executive capabilities to translate their words into deeds.


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: india; pakistan; southasia; southasialist; unitedstates
This TIMES OF INDIA report is hardly a surprise.

India needs to realize that America is primarily concerned about America's interests. If America's interests demand that they go soft on dictator Musharraf, America will do just that regardless of Musharraf's actions that continue to hurt India.

India must take care of India's interests and not look to America to stop Musharraf's nefarious activities.

It's difficult to understand why India does not take the battle right into Pakistan by extending full moral and material support to the Sindhis and the Balochis, the Mohajirs and the Balwaristanis, and perhaps the Pushtuns, to gain independence from the Punjabi-dominated military dictatorship.

The time is ripe as the Sindhis, the Balochis and the other ethnic groups seeking independence from Pakisan are getting active in the United States trying to build a constituency of support in Congress.

1 posted on 05/11/2003 7:24:50 PM PDT by Mike_Flats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mike_Flats
Welcome to FreeRepublic.

One of these days (God willing), I'll revisit India. It's been about thirty years.

2 posted on 05/11/2003 7:34:42 PM PDT by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *southasia_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
3 posted on 05/11/2003 7:40:51 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike_Flats
Armitage works for the State Dept., a wholly owned subsidiary of militant Islam. The State dept. is currently occupied with screwing over Israel. When they are done there, they will screw over India.
4 posted on 05/11/2003 7:43:12 PM PDT by LarryM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike_Flats
India is almost schizophrenic about America at this point. They should keep in mind that, as you say, our primary interest is our own national security. We will make alliances if they are in our own interests, and as a rule we are loyal to our allies.

But when you read the Indian newspapers, one day they are threatening to make an alliance with China, the next day they want us to bomb Pakistan, the next day they want to make an alliance with Putin against the United States, and the next day they want us to give them more I.T. jobs.

India was cozy with the Soviet Union and thumbed its nose at the U.S. for decades. It will take a while before the U.S. decides that they would make a reliable partner. Nor can we afford to cut Musharref loose at this time. But if India stays the course and cuts out the nonsense, there may well be a gradual raprochement.
5 posted on 05/11/2003 7:55:35 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LarryM
True about Armitage. But India does not have a history of being our ally. To the contrary, they sided with the Soviet Union consistently, and consistently tried to stir up the "third world" against us.

I wouldn't trust Armitage any further than I could kick him. But India stood down, IMHO, because there was no alternative but a suicidal nuclear exchange.
6 posted on 05/11/2003 7:57:55 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mike_Flats
But having succeeded in preventing Indian retribution, and getting the Indian Army back to its barracks, Armitage's message this time around was that it was not his job to give assurances. It was up to India to decide what it wanted to make of Musharraf's promises.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I take Armitage's message to be a "green light". We needed India to back off when we needed Musharraf. We no longer need him, or rather, he is not able to deliver any more than he has already delivered. Our main point of leverage with Musharraf was our ability to protect him from India; Mush can't or won't go farther than he has already gone, and we are removing the shield.

Now its just a question of how far India wants to push it, but we aren't going to go and beg them to stop. Just give us a heads up so we can go in and grab the nukes.

7 posted on 05/11/2003 8:15:23 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
India also didn't back us diplomatically in the buildup for the war on Iraq. Instead they criticized us. So the hell with them.

I suspect India also backed down because Pakistan may actually be in a stronger position vis-a-vis their ability to deliver nukes on target. India flies Russian junk. Pakistan has F-16's. Pakistan is getting help on it's missiles from China and North Korea. India is going it alone on the missile development front (and having difficulties it seems).

India's edge on the ground and at sea may be outmatched on the nuke front.

8 posted on 05/11/2003 8:55:56 PM PDT by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LenS
India flies Russian junk. Pakistan has F-16's

You're one of the few people to say that the SU 30MKI, equipped with Israeli,Indian,French / avionics,radar,weapon systems, is junk. Esp when it is ranged against the "export model" F16-A's flown by the Pakistanis. IMO, even the Indian MiG-29's or Mirage 2000's (yes, its French, I know) can out-perform the Pakistani F16-A's , as they have western radar and weapons systems.

9 posted on 05/11/2003 9:47:41 PM PDT by IndianChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mike_Flats
Nuclear war is a question of sin, scapegoats and reducing the pressure. Big nuke nations, and especially neighboring China and Russia, would stand to win politicaly amongst other things if India and Pakistan fought each other with nukes. A weakened a cowardly America with nukes under a Clinton would have yielded also such a war... and may in the future.
10 posted on 05/12/2003 6:36:19 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
ping on India
11 posted on 05/12/2003 6:38:49 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LarryM
Oh no, NEWT alert, guess old Armitage will tell the Indians for being critical to get back on their "meds and therapy".
12 posted on 05/12/2003 6:41:58 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IndianChief
IMO, even the Indian MiG-29's or Mirage 2000's (yes, its French, I know) can out-perform the Pakistani F16-A's , as they have western radar and weapons systems.

I would not be so sure about the Mig29. It may have better maneuverability but it has not the swiftness of a central low moment of inertia single engine configuration of the F16. The single engine Mirage may be an exact match to the F16 in many ways, although it is much more expensive and not exactly more maneuverable or faster either, although that inverted delta does wonders. So in terms of $$s per, the F16 is better than its equivalent Mirage.

13 posted on 05/12/2003 6:42:21 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mike_Flats
The truth of the matter is that the US wants both India and Pakistan to de-nuclearize. Nukes in these 2 countries may fall in terrs hands---that's the US fears
14 posted on 05/12/2003 6:43:30 AM PDT by The Pheonix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IndianChief
The SU30MKI of course, if it works and is reliable, is the superior aircraft. I have no idea why the West is not investing into thrust vectoring. Technicaly, with a good computer program and algorithm, the SU30MKI can have an unbeatable algorithm to always defeat all other airplanes save the late F22 (not fielded yet). So, mind you, a pilot at the commands with good situational awareness can do wonders with the MKI.
15 posted on 05/12/2003 6:45:54 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Pheonix
The truth of the matter is that the US wants both India and Pakistan to de-nuclearize. Nukes in these 2 countries may fall in terrs hands---that's the US fears

There is a sin factor with Pakistani Islamic bomb and India conversely overreacting given the erratic behavior of its neighbors.

Nuke war is way overdue in this world.

16 posted on 05/12/2003 6:47:29 AM PDT by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lavaroise
If you specifically compare the F-16's operated by Pakistan along with its attached weapons capabilities, with Indian MiG-29's and Mirage 2000's, then the PAF F-16's advantages may be more than nullified with the BVR radar and missiles of the Indian Air Force. I am not comparing the Mig-29 with USAF F-16's.

Also, pilot training is critical. It is very difficult for us in India to get news about our forces, esp about the 1965 and '71 wars, that is not put out by the govt. What I've heard is that in each of the two wars, Pakistan lost aircraft to vastly inferior Indian planes - in 1965 an IAF Ouragan shot down a PAF Sabre and in 1971, of couse, IAF Ajeets ( Gnats) shot down a few PAF F-104's.

17 posted on 05/12/2003 8:30:18 AM PDT by IndianChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson