By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
A number of you have asked me on Facebook and Twitter what I think of India’s recent decision not to buy $10 billion worth of American warplanes.
I think it was a big mistake on India’s part. Despite what India says, defense purchases like this are about more than just planes. The Indian press has portrayed the country’s decision to buy European jets instead as a very clever strategy of hedging its bets. That’s nonsense.
First of all, the idea that India’s foreign policy elite are able to think in a strategic and wise way on behalf of the country is highly questionable. These are the people who allied India steadfastly with the Soviet Union and Communist China up until the point that Chairman Mao decided to invade India.
Then, they doubled down on the bet and backed the Soviet Union, including endorsing the invasions of Cambodia and then Afghanistan. They stood with the Soviet Union right up to the point that the Soviet Union collapsed and it became clear that New Delhi had gotten behind the wrong side in the Cold War.
This same establishment is now telling us how clever they are being.
The fundamental fact is India needs the United States more than the United States needs India. The U.S. economy is $15 trillion; I think it will survive the loss of this $10 billion deal!
For the Indians, they lost a lot of goodwill at a crucial time. The Americans felt they had bent over backwards to do favors for India. The U.S. was the indispensable force in ending India’s nuclear apartheid, for example. Then India blew an opportunity to cement that positive relationship.
India needs America. First of all, this is because India’s immediate security is entirely dependent on maintaining a stable relationship with Pakistan. India is unable to forge a stable relationship itself for all kinds of historical reasons. The Pakistan-Indian relationship is just so fraught.
America is a very useful interlocutor because India’s and America’s interests in a place like Afghanistan are identical: stability and the absence of terror groups. India could gain a very powerful ally in America who also has enormous influence over Pakistan.
Secondly, the rise of China is the big strategic problem for India over the next 25 years and once again the single most important outside power in the context of the rise of China is the United States. This is true from an economic, political and military point of view.
So looking at that strategic landscape, you have to ask yourself, “What are Indian strategic planners thinking?” My guess is they’re not thinking. This is the scratching of old, non-aligned itches. Left wing ideology, which has been beaten back and exposed as bankrupt in the economic realm, has found some place in the political realm.
Maybe it will take 20 years, but just as surely as India’s very clever strategy during the Cold War proved to be a profound mistake, people will look back on what India is doing right now and say that it had a chance to build an extraordinary and close relationship with the United States and it blew it.
I hope that’s not what happens but the Indians certainly seem on course to do just that.
Those are my thoughts. I invite you to share yours below, and to follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Well I am not completely sure that decisions during cold war were mistakes. You should consider the other what if scenario as well. Pakistan has made right strategic decision according to you then how do you reason for its current state which is comletely dismal compared to present India
Correct decision from India definitely... it will avoid becoming a US tissue paper like many other nations in history
Since its now completely obvious to the whole world the pakis dont know their a$$ from a hole in the ground, why is it surpizing that they're treated like toilet paper?
Who in their right mind would not buy USA kit? We spend way too much on our military at the expense of education, etc so it would be stupid not to take advantage of our stupidity. We spend more on our military than the next five biggest countries combined. Nobody else near as good stealth technology as well.
Ahh, but India is already a tissue paper tiger.
I have been following Fareed Zakaria's arguments for quite some time and it is apparent that his opinions are mostly pro-India and he is looking for fostering ties between two deserving nations.
In context to the Indo-US ties, while making important decisions we always look at history and try to avoid mistakes that we had committed in our recent past. The biggest reason that I see India not being as close to US as it should have been was affinity of US towards Imperialist England. If audience can recall, just after India's independence in 1947, India was very much interested in having healthy business with US but for some unforeseen reasons US decided to follow and rely on England's opinion. After been kicked-out of its greatest colony, obviously England wouldn't be having nice feelings towards genuine India (since creation of Pakistan wasn't a genuine case). Making friendship with British-America would have definitely given nightmares to the contemporary Indian politicians of pre-cold-war era.
On the other hand, making close ties with USSR wasn't a bad deal at that time especially when USSR had extended hands of friendship to India after China's invasion in 1962. Although, India did not restrained itself from being friends with anyone else. In fact, India continued advocating Non-Aligned Movement which means nations would not conditionally part with either USA or USSR.
I believe, when it comes to foreign relations, India has always followed what is best for itself under prevailing circumstances. When it comes to nation-to-nation relationship, I strongly disagree with the notion of being "one's need is more than another's need".
Said so, the past was not conducive for Indo-US relationships and thus two parties didn't do so. Those weren't bad decisions at all and they shouldn't affect present either! The current geo-political and economic situations indicate that India and US must co-operate now and I believe they will do so in the near future....
Wow, Paki, tissue paper? Something you never use since you couldn't find your arse with velcro gloves, a flashlight, and GPS. You did a great job of finding Osama, eh?. Anway, maybe India made a mistake, but I doubt it will impact relations. At least THEY are honest and trustworthy,
You are correct.
It must eat people like Pakistani up that India is actually a respected member of the world community. And Pakistan? A punchline to a joke, just a notch up from Somalia.Go home and burn some flags.
Fareed you are perhaps less than half right. For the longest time the US never made any or for that matter genuine overtures towards India but has always helped Pakistan. Show me one instance where the US has come away with a successful relationship where both sides gained? The US has always used these relationships for a one way advantage and mostly propping up repressive dictators while they advocated democracy from the other side of the mouth! Had the US wanted to develop a genuine relationship with India they would have gone in a long time ago and invested in India like they did in China and listened to India about the devilish antics of Pakistan. Even now after the Indian Parliament attack and Mumbai massacre the US has dragged their feet on calling Pakistan to the mat. It took almost 2 years for the US to give access to one of the plotters – Headley but when it came to self interest they have been conducting drone attacks inside Pakistan for several years ! Would they have tolerated the same if India would have gone in to wipe out the terrorist camps? Where is Dawood? Surely the US knows where he is? India has no reason to trust ANYONE. NO ONE is going to come to India's aid in times of crisis. I wonder if the US will do anything if Taiwan is attacked by China? India does not need the US, never has never will. The US needs India because now they are finding that both the countries they have invested in are spitting back in their face – Pakistan and China !
On the other hand.... contrary to your view that China could become a adversary and a threat to India in the long run, It is quite possible that China & India could Join Hands, and china could part ways with Pakistan in the long run...... I think this is the crux of the fears or apprehensions of the USA.... So to answer your fears, No I do not agree that India has done wrong in taking the stand it has taken in all these years...... It has chosen wisely based on circumstances prevalent, and No it is not going to be judged on the basis of IF & HOW it has NOT MAINTAINED or accepted a BLANKET relationship with USA as a puppet ally!
When a paki says an Indian decision was correct, you can be sure that the decision was definitely wrong.
Its pretty clear cut there. It was a mistake since India sided with the losing team.
Partnering with the USSR didnt impact India in a negative way in the end. ok so USSR collapsed – not a big issue for India as such. By Zakaria's same screwed up logic, Pakistan and Afgh were aided by the US, and look where they are now. And look at the progress India has made by not siding with the "winning team"!!
As for Afghanistan, look what happened after the Russians went out – Taliban happened! Not sure which would have been worse – Soviets or Taliban...
Priya, remember that the USA is funding a significant chunk of India's development now and has been for several decades through outsourcing jobs to India and allowing all of India's well-educated to come to the USA for jobs and further education. This is not a hedge bet, it is happening now. All the USA needs to do is grow some testicles and stop granting visas to Indian nationals and make outsourcing jobs to India economically non-viable. That would be incredibly hurtful to the Indian economy. It isn't very nice to spit in the eye of a nation providing such valuable opportunities to India's citizens. Siding with other nations can have undesireable consequences. Economics are about reality, not ideology. Europe does not provide the number of jobs and visas the USA does and neither will China. Will it take 20 years to discover that?
@reality not ideology
I think you should get your facts right. US-India trade is balanced. i..e India buys as much from the US as it sells (including outsourced services). So to say that US is doling out jobs to India is not correct. US buys services from India and India buys commercial airplanes etc from US.
Regarding the fighter aircraft deal, I just dont see the logic why US expects anyone to buy planes designed 40 years ago, that they themselves are phasing out. That too with so many restrictions. And to top it all, you are giving these planes free to Pakistan just to be your friend. But you expect India to dole out 10 billion dollars for them.
If you so much consider India to be your strategic partner, roll out the F22s.
@Reality Not Ideology, I wont say that the outsourcing does not help India, but US isnt doing this out of charity or goodwill. It makes as much business sense for US as it does for India. Plain and simple. According to the author of this post, the only thing to consider in a $10 billion deal is the relations. I doubt his wisdom. If India can get a better deal from Europe, she has every right to grab that and not get concerned about what effect the deal would have on its ties with the US. Why should rejecting a deal that does not make economic sense be spitting in the eye. Its just that the Europeans beat the US in offering a better deal. It is definitely not about siding with a nation. You speak as if India is the only nation gaining from the friendship. India has a growing market and is very lucrative for many US companies.
@reality not ideology
First of all. The "outsourcing" you call it amounts to $56 billion from US, in India's $1.23 trillion economy. India doesn't count on it like US probably didn't on India's $10 billion airplane deal. India's economic growth is self sustained, growing from internal demand unlike China's export driven economy. For second, the 65,000 H1 Visa employees that you refer to work at a competitive wages so that it can help US companies which are loosing ground (GM, Ford, Chrysler) get a competitive edge by reduced overhead costs. If that was not the only benefit, they also contribute more than any other tax bracket individuals to contribute to your Social Security safety net and Medicare that they are NOT EVEN eligible for. So my friend as much as 60 year old India is struggling to get its foreign policies right, I would give it props for at least trying.
@reality not idealogy: Please check you vocabulary. Trade != funding development. If that is indeed that case, wouldn't you call India as having been especially benevolent towards the Brits in the 19th and early 20th centuries? I mean, all that (imperial) wealth, wasn't that "developmental aid" to Britain then? If that wasn't, stop kidding yourself, and get real!
$10 billions for junk? Are you kidding us by offering F-16s and F-18??????? And what happens in a Indo- Pak conflict scenario " Pak-F16 in dog fight with Indian F16" Not much fun for the boys I guess!!! Come on US we are more proud than you think. And about the nuclear deal. I think Indians should reject it outright as it is nothing but a means of US companies doing nuclear business in India and also diverting India away from the mastering Thorium cycle that it has so doggedly followed.How about offering India an aircraft carrier?????
I am totally agree with Zakaria on this. India has always married to wrong partner. We should not consider Pakistan rather look at South Korea, Japan and China as real US alliance. How much they have made out of this partnership. India have a similar chance, and again another wrong decision.
What about P3-C Orion AWACS, C-130 super Hercules and C5 Galaxies? India made a good decision to buy these. These planes are currently in the USAF inventory and will be there for long. F-16, entered service in 1979, come on, no matter how much more advance avionics you add to it, it is still a plane whose air frame and structure was designed in 70's and F-18 hornets, the same. why doesn't the US offer F-35's and F-22's. Rafael and euro fighter were designed in the mid 90's. India would keep buying US arms but it should chose the best of the lot offered to it. The only thing that the American jets have are the AESA radars which are better than the ones on European fighters.
Your rather confused grammar betrays your very confused thoughts. Frankly I don't know what you mean but I'm sure you have not thought much.
Partnering with the USSR didnt impact India in a negative way in the end. ok so USSR collapsed – not a big issue for India as such. By Zakaria's same screwed up logic, Pakistan and Afgh were aided by the US, and look where they are now. And look at the progress India has made by not siding with the "winning team"!!
As for Afghanistan, look what happened after the Russians went out – Taliban happened! Not sure which would have been worse – Soviets or Taliban...
Confused? Realy? His thoughts seem pretty clear and straightforward. The 'right' strategy doesn't always require siding with the US. Simple.
@Zakaria :
Are you for real man? Can't believe the cr*p that you are talking about. Amazing to see such a crazy thought (in supporting this 10B deal of older technology) from you who is suppose to be an expert in the region. Stop being a slave or wanting to report what American bosses want to hear. Be a true journalist. Several of the posts provide much better understanding and clear view on the subject than yours. Please sh*t it, if you don't know what the real reason is .....
Friend let us not get into grammer. Come to the point. Each one of the countries that US helped at one point or other : Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and the list is on, see what happened to them. India is smart not to become gullible to petty carrots. It was a very well crafted deal proposed by Obama govt, get India dependent upon US technology, and use the billions of dollars for its own sagging war economy. Come-on people cannot fool everyone.
I guess India made right decision by staying away from US deal. Prime reason is US love to Pakistan for decades. Even after knowing that Pak is aiding many terror groups mostly working against India. For US, terror means the groups working against US interests. In Kargil war, even though US knew that Pak is using it's milatry in the name of terror groups, it stopped India from attacking on them. They forced India to avild using air force. Now US is giving away F16/18 to Pak and trying to sell same technology to India. US only wants to sell gears to both rivals and keep them under fear of war. My suggestion to India is, until US abandon Pak completely, India should not buy any military gears from US. And if someone from US is saying India is not thinking, let them. For that matter I don't think US did any right decision in the past. US helped Saddam to fight against Iran, helped Laden and Pak to fight against Rassis, helping Pak to fight Laden, helping Isrial to fight Palestine and what not.
True Divyam.
Dr. Zakaria...... I had hoped that you would give your unbiased opinion, given your outstanding achievements. But your article is quite biased, unfortunately. India cannot depend solely on the US. They have so far backed Pakistan and all the aid being given to Pakistan might have been the real problem.
So, wonder how US has bent backward to support India? India needs US more than the other way round???? That's what many would like to believe. But the truth is that China is becoming economically stronger than the US and US need India to somehow curb China........ $10 billion deal is not that big an issue for India either. So, please get your facts right. India may not do 100 things right, but has always been on the right side, that is the side of peace and fairness.
Peace and fairness? How can anybody from India talk about what a great nation India is and how well off it is and how it made the right decision to follow the USSR through the Cold War. A nation that lets its people starve and lets its people bathe and drink the most polluted waters in the world has no place to talk. People that worship food and then let people...human beings...starve. Lets not forget the caste system, o it doesn't exsist anymore, bull crap. Indians need to get their heads out of the sand and realize what lousy condition their own country is in.
I keep reading about the open sore named Kashmir and "peace and fairness" does not come to mind. Keeping India's food and automobile markets closed to outside manufacturers while Indian goods are freely marketed in other countries is also not fair. Providing unbreakable tenure to all government officials in India (from postal employees on up) despite incompetence and graft that defies belief is terribly unfair to the citizens. These latter things (in all countries) need attention and represents the real "war" we all need to be fighting.
I was born and raised in the US, and am an American by my own calling and no one elses. So when I say I spent a few months for a few years straight, and toured India-top to bottom, I realized: Thats the ONLY thing different in America: A shower, a commode and some under-ground pipes. America is just as corrupt as India, its people are just as educated AND uneducated as India. In the end, those who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw Stones. You can read magazines with pictures to get an idea, or like I, you can live it...and this from a self-proclaimed and yet unclaimed American.
India and China are competitors for being cheap places to manufacture goods for export to the first world. China has attacked India militarily. He who would sup with the devil had best bring a long spoon!
Josh,
Yes we have a lot of people starving, Yes we have polluted waters, Yes we have caste system and it still prevails, but what has it got to do with peace and fairness? When we speak of India here we are talking about the whole nation inclusing poor rich and middleclass and collectively as a nation we have always been on the side of peace and fairness. Let us deal with our internal problems. So wherever you are from Im sure your country has some internal problems too. If you are from USA, you are telling me there is everything fair and prosperous here? Bull crap!
I have to disagree with Dr.Zakaria for the fact that he is painting a nice picture about how USA helped India comeout of Nuclear isolation. The fact is that USA was the first one to put sanctions after 1998 when true friend countries like France have come out in support. The same is also true in case of nuclear deals. Also who can forget USA ending up in the wrong side of liberation of Bangladesh. What were US Stratagists thinking?
So USA is not a loyal friend? Who is – China? Russia? India? Anybody?
Yes Ted, nobody is anybody's friend. At least you got that part right!
The real reason why India did not make a deal, because the US user agreement locks them into buying spare parts and prevents them from reverse engineering the planes to eventually make their own.
Right, and you, the American thinks that "those dumb Europeans" are inviting the Indians to reverse engineer _their_ planes. How insightful. (That was sarcasm, in case you missed it )
How true. US failed to supply even Indian tanks during the 1965 war. In 1971 it did not back India. US has steadfastly backed Dictators like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia Ul Haq and Musharaff and increased aid to Pakistan when dictators ruled Pakistan. US destabilized Pakistan by using it to arm, train and finance the ilk of Bin Laden and Islamic Jihadists during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan hates india so why the bloody heck should india trust US? It is afraid of the Chengdu-J20 and the F-16 on offer is no match in airframe worthiness for the future. India is very afraid of China because China whupped India's ass in the short lived war in 1962 until peace was negotiated by the leaders of Ceylon, Indonesia and Egypt as part of the non-aligned movement. US did not give a damn nor help a dime. US record with India is very poor in terms of weapons. In India Airforce's skilled hands even the old MIrage 2000 and the Mig 29 which they also manufacture and also the Jaguar bomber will outwit and out fight Pakistan with their F-16s any given Sunday.
Absolutley, Pakistan would be better off, if it was not friends with America today.
Actually, that is true, Look at Pakistan, they were fine until USA started offering money and arms to create Taliban to fight USSR. When USSR left, so us Nd look what. Beast Taliban has become, and Pakistan is facing USA created problem by going in the drain.
India better off not repeating the same path as Pakistan and keep USA at safe distance
Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan were also aligned with the US. And how are these countries doing?
Why did Pakistan fail? Answer: Islamist ideology. This phenomenon is unique to Pakistan, but completely misses the point when discussing India.
wrong, India is a backstabbing nation...go back years. they back stab and gain foothold...
Must be a Pakistani. I'd trust India over Pakistan any day.
@nada – you must be an under qualifed latino who lost his job to a highly qualified Indian. So my friend nada – the moral of the story is – get a degree or flip burgers at McDonalds ... there's plenty of those around.
@IndigoNation:
Dude.. you just rock..... could'nt stop bursting into laugh... ANd I totally agree with you..
How true! Indians are snakes and can't be trusted any day. It has no friends even in its own neighbour.
You are absolutely correct. Pakistan steadfastly and religiously backed the US through thick and thin, prior to the cold war and fought US' proxy battle in Afghanistan during the height of cold war. Then Pakistan again chose to align itself with US foreign policy objectives, rather naively, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And now the Pakistani state is again in an abysmal condition, thanks in part to allying itself to the US and its foreign policy.
India is much better off without America's goodwill.
India's best hope lies in competing with China as an inexpensive place to outsource manufacturing. It would best for India to try to have the best possible relationship with both the US and Europe, as both can be significant markets for India. I suppose the European tilt has to do with traditional ties, based on the British Commonwealth, which has in turn led to more economic ties with Europe than with the US. I think the tilt towards the USSR can be explained as an attempt to appease a threat close to their borders. Of course, being attacked by China just goes to reinforce the dangers of a policy of appeasement. With an aggressive neighbor, such a policy seems like dangerous weakness. Just ask the British where it got them under Neville Chamberlain.
I have been following Fareed Zakaria's arguments for quite some time and it is apparent that his opinions are mostly pro-India and I appreciate his efforts to foster ties between two deserving nations.
In context to the Indo-US ties, - while making important decisions we always look at history and try to avoid mistakes that we had committed in our recent past. The biggest reason that I see India not being as close to US as it should have been was affinity of US towards Imperialist England before and after world war II. If audience can recall, just after India's independece in 1947, India was very much interested in having healthy business with US but for some unforeseen reasons US decided to follow and rely on England's opinion. After been kicked-out of its greatest colony, obviously England wouldn't be having nice feelings towards genuine India (since creation of Pakistan wasn't a geniune case). Making friendship with British-America would have definitely given nightmares to the contemporary Indian politicians of pre-cold-war era.
On the other hand, making close ties with USSR wasn't a bad deal at that time especially when USSR had extended hands of friendship to India after China's invasion in 1962. Although, India did not restrained itself from being friends with anyone else. Infact, India continued advocating Non-Aligned Movement which means nations would not conditionally part with either USA or USSR.
I beleive, when it comes to foreign relations, India has always followed what is best for itself under prevailing circumstances. When it comes to nation-to-nation relationship, I strongly disagree with the notion of being "one's need is more than another's need".
Said so, the past was not condusive for Indo-US relationships and thus two parties didn't do so. Those weresn't bad decisions at all and they shouldn't affect present! But the current geo-political and economic situations indicates that India and US must co-operate now and I beleive they will do so in the near future....
Fareed is trying to make his new GreenCard Citizen status valid by pulling for US; US has a long story of being unreliable partners with india. US actively backed Dictatorships in Pakistan. it refused to send spares to India on time in 1965 war with pakistan. It always supplies the non top of the line weapons to other nations except Israel. India has buying power and manufactures weapons including the Su-30 It does not want to depend too much on outside supplies in case of war. And PLEASE NOTE FAREED, you are speaking bunkum,. This was about the F-16 which is a DATED airframe and NOt the F-22 or the F-18. US was putting pressure at the highest levels but India has a huge comfort zone in training and spares on Soviet weapons. The Euro fighter has an airframe that will be state of the art until 30 years from now. Modern avionics or not, the F-16 is dated. US already supplied it to Pakistan and will NEVER give the top of the line weapons it uses and also sells only to Israel to other nations. US NEEDS INDIA MORE now for geo-political reasons than India needs the US. US HAS NEVER done India favors. The nuclear power plant issue was about SELLING US stuff to India. Fareed is trying to ingratiate himself to Obama.
people really miss the facts on this one. its fairly simple really.
1. the reason the US supported dictators in the reigon including pakistan(which is wrong yes) . and the Mujahadin (which is not the same as taliban so get it right) is because it was staunchly anti communist. that means whatever government thats in place at the time had to be better than the communists. im not saying this is right i'm just saying that was the policy through the cold war. it got us a lot of enemies and gave us a bad name but we also made a few friends. both sides made mistakes and chose policy that benefited there own states at the expense of others just as every country does today and has done forever.
2. the US never backed the indians because it was a huge dangerous ally of the Soviets. pretty simple there.
3.the reason the french are such good friends with the indians is because they've always been rivals with the british and they desperately wanted anther sphere of influence in the area after there loss of French indonesia. again. pretty simple there.
4. the soviets have not now nor at any time during and after the coldwar supplied "crap" there strategy was different from ares but at the same time was very very effective and efficient. the US typically went for quality over quantity. while the soviets would go for a more quality that actually worked and was easy and cheap to manufacture over american higher quality that had massive costs and was often inefficient. yes they made the mistake of being communist though because everyone with a highschool diploma knows a communist government cant compete economically against capatalist oponents. again. its different tech but still extremely capable and dangerous and to say the soviets had "crap" or whatever is ignorant and stupid.
5. the same goes for american f/a-18's and f-16's its essentially the american response to massive amounts of cheap efficient Migs the soviets were fielding and supplying. if you've done any research on either plane you'd know that both actually competed for the contract of cheap efficient air superiority fighters that would give us a numerical bounce to catch up with the soviets. the f-16 originally won but the f-18 was later resurected by lockhead and mcdonnell douglas and found a niche in the Navy. both are still extremely capable and versatile planes and the airframes aren't "obsolete" as some would suggest. they're 4th gen aircraft and when you just do a little research you'd realize that most of the world still relies on 4th gen or even 3rd gen aircraft with upgraded electronics and radar. they are being phazed out in the US yes but they are far from "obsolete"
6. the indians have been buying european and soviet aircraft basically since they became a country and they have a better relationship not to mention surplus of parts, And yes the eurofighter is a 4.5 gen aircraft and if thats what your looking for than thats what your gonna buy. f-18s aren't obsolete but they are outclassed by the much newer eurofighter.
7. and finally saying that the indians need the US. more than we need them is a little ignorant i think. especially because if the US could get a similar relationship with india that it has with china would not only benefit the indians with massive exports but at the same time hamper china hugely. think about it. if you could take 50% of your trade away from china and give it to the indians it would wreck china while not destroying them it would certainly slow there growth which i'm sure not just americans would appreciate
.
Read following:
THE DOUBLE GAME
The unintended consequences of American funding in Pakistan.
by Lawrence WrightMAY 16, 2011
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/16/110516fa_fact_wright?printable=true#ixzz1M0n9PnlY
"the U.S. could use this as leverage to pressure India to allow the Kashmiris to vote on their future, which would very likely be a vote for independence"
Indian strategic thinkers may not be as dumb as Zakaria feels about them.
He wants India to buy F15/F16A aircraft.
Following article doesn't even include F16 and F15 in the comparison charts.
Comparison of modern fighter aircraft at http://www.defencetalk.com/comparison-of-modern-fighter-aircraft-17086/
I agree Zaakaria gave his opinion. I do believe from my sources that the european fighters performed better at the higher altitudes that India would want to deploy these jests in the case of hostilities. Read China. The US fighter jets were also more expensive with too many restrictive end user agreements and lack of other technical know how. do you realize that the US if they sold these jets to India could make these highly technical aircraft useless as the US can disarm some of the firing technology if the US felt that India was using them against their FP interests. Do we remember the US 5th fleet in the Bay of bengal in 1971, when India decapitated East from West Pakistan? We are buying some US heavy lift and surveillance aircraft. The decision to buy the European aircraft is wise, as it was the recommendation of the IAF and not a political one. We do not want our babus piloting these sophisticated aircraft, do we ? Most of that cadre have no education and 67% have a criminal back ground.
Idiot...you are really a NIRVAN
one of the strongest point influencing this decision, I think is the reliability to get spares and follow up services from the suppliers. The history of US on this score did not come up to the expectations. The second factor was the security of information, keeping in view the degree of close US/Pak relations. Indians did not feel comfortable on these points and hense made the alternative choice.
I agree with you. Zakaria, like any American, does not completely understand the ground reality of South Asian politics. How can US support, militarily not for development, India and Pakistan simultaneously. Its like supporting Afgan government and Talibans at the same time.
Had India been totally dependent on US on economic front, it would have been under the drain by now. Thanks for its leaders to diversify its dependence on Europe, Middle-east etc, and not to solely rely on any one country. Historically, whosoever has been dependent one just one nation – as someone has commented earlier has been used and thrown away as tissue paper. Mr Zakaria is out of his wits.
There are several reasons why I feel that India's decision for not going with the American deal make perfect sense. Let me list these for you. 1) We made a major mistake by aligning with and using USSR and then Russia as the sole supplier of arms. In the recent years we have had issues sourcing parts from Russia and the CSR for the equipment we already have .We have already signed defense deals of more that $10bn with USA to buy different kinds of aircraft and other materials. We cannot afford to have another round of sanctions slapped on us (surely you remember what happened in late 1990's) a few years from now, and have all the deals frozen again. Therefore its best for India to sign defense deals with nations other than USA. More than likely India will go with the Eurofighter. A deal that involves pacts with several nations that are outside the realm of American influence. 2) You say that the Americans bent over backwards for the Indian deal. That is not really true. The American deal did not include technology transfer, which was one of the more important considerations. The European deals include technology transfer. 3) The offer for the F/A 18 and F16 fighters was good but not the best, since these planes are being phased out of the American airforce and navy, and these aircrafts weren't the best out of the six being considered. 4) I agree that India needs USA. Well, USA needs India too, that is a stable India, in a very geopolitically unstable region in the word. We, as Indians, understand that too. 5) Lastly, by buying American arms, we are in a sense financing the Pakistani Defence forces. If we were to buy all our aircrafts from the US, then over the next decade we would have paid more that 30-35Bn dollars to the American companies (including the past deals, and the future possibility of buying another 100-125 fighter aircrafts from the winner of the current defence deal). Part of the tax revenue would be paid back to the US government. I don't think I would want my government to indirectly finance the Pakistani armed forces.
Eloquent yet powerful.Great assortment of pointers highlighting strategic overview. Over-hyped commonalities seldom make for a robust alliance.If we "chose a plane over a relation
,to quote the words of a "wise" American,why are Americans using a plane to define this relationship?What guarantees does Fareed Zakaria offer in case America were to unilaterally call off transfer of essentials and other equipment supplies in case India went against other American strategic interests in future? Surely we have seen that episode in the past!
i second Rahul's argument.
While I'm an ardent admirer of Fareed Zakaria and so very glad that President Obama is now listening to his advice, I have to agree with Rahul here especially with his points 1,2 and 4. The Indian armed forces cannot afford to be at the mercy of fickle American politics and policies that could change every 2 years. A strengthening of Indo-US relations is necessary and ongoing but it is hardly worth risking a stable supply of spare parts for purchased military aircraft (particularly because technology transfer is not part of the US offer) for these relations. Relations with European countries are more business-like because of those countries are less interested in influencing the geopolitical state in South Asia and are therefore less likely to be influenced by political winds of change.
I appreciate reading the opinions of folks who seem to be much closer to the issue than most American pundits, etc. I have to wonder why India doesn't have a program to build it's own a/c..it's certainly not for lack of educated talent. I understand it would be a long and risky road, but so is being dependent on other countries. Perhaps the reason EU countries have lesser interest in the Asian theater is that the US is doing that lifting for them. Many voters in the US would like to see us do a significant degree of disentangling of "relationships" in a multitude of world regions. I think it would promote more stability for the US, and independence is often better than inter-dependence.
Rahul,
You seem to be more knowledgable on this issue than Mr. Zakaria. Maybe CNN should let you write on this topic the next time around.
Just to add another point to India went to USSR because americans whom indians consider as friend was not ready to supply weapons and planes in the 1950-60. Indians having no choice went to russia and US started supporting Pakistan. Fareed we can see who well that has worked out for US. US infact had threatened India with their entire 7th Fleet in the 71 war with Pakistan and only russia's interference had prevented US from attacking India. Mistakes where committed on both sides. Politically and miitarily India-US relationship is more important now than ever to tackle the China-Pakistan threat..Hope we learn from our past this time atleast...
Another reason why India doesn't trust US is because of what happened to the cryogenic engine deal. US not only stopped all space cooperation but also forced USSR to not provide th cryogenic engines to India. That left a very bad taste and I don't Indian's have forgotten that. India ended up developing their own cryogenic since Russia and US denied them the technology. Though this delayed the space program by at least 10 years. Now who can forget that?
Imagine if GM would let you buy the car only on the condition that you must have it serviced at the GM stealership at 5X the price. That's the risk in buying high tech fighter planes from US. Indians know very well that if they buy from US, US will attempt to manipulate India's political decisions. I do not know of any country in the world that forces its own jurisdiction and legal system upon the other countries. There are laws in US that can choke arms and technology supply to India should their congress/ senate so decide – to me that is direct interference in another country's internal matters.
Very well said Rahul. I completely agree with you.
I would like to add one more point to voice what @rahukl said. Let assume, if India does one more (yes one more) nuclear test before agreeing to sigh the CTBT or what ever the nuclear treaty then the DEAL with USA will be off or we dont get any fighter jets or parts of technology EVEN if we have paid the money UPFRONT.
US tries to MUSCLE up becasue of their $ 15 Trillion economy ! We dont like it, and most of the GLOBE thinks , US now enjoys the Economic super power along with the influence – It wont be long that other , including Europe (and Asia) will catch up to it. US influence is fading , slowly but steadily – US can't play catch in this area BUT I agree they have more fire power in terms of defence !
Fareed I agree with you BUT not on THIS. I think , India's think tank is DEAD right on this issue !
I agree Rahul. Kudos to you for bringing up the points. Other reason I believe India went with Russia was because, we need somebody close to us as a friend whom we can rely on not on somebody who is continents away. I think Fareed did not make an assumption of terrorism when writing this blog, we can see the fate of pakistan who supported Taliban is having problems with them. USA created the problem of terrorism in Afghan to kick out Russia today they have problems with them. So better we stay alone and build up on our own rather than having anybody who would screw up our motherland. I agreee that USA needs India more than India needs USA because India is among the next superpower countries with a boosting economy and manpower. Let india shine with her own efforts, because we don't want anybody in the capitol hill saying "we empowered India to be a super power." And more over If USA needs to counteract China's growth, it defnitely needs India. And India is not worries about any country becoming more powerful than her in the American continent. Fareed should have made a better homework before writing this blog. Very immature comment at Fareed's level. I Pity him.
An educated person can disagree but always respects other opinions. Calling someone else immature because you disagree with that person would make you an immature person.
So it makes Quang immature too because he disagrees with me. I mentioned at his level if you know the meaning of it Quang. I'm not at his level making millions as a news person. It is his duty to do good homework before putting it front of millions.
Raghavan, Quang's comment is accurate. Because I disagree with some of your statements doesn't make me want to label you as "immature", it makes me want to label your comment (not you) as misinformed. If India doesn't need the USA, please pull all Indian nationals out of USA jobs (what will all those physicians and scientists do in India with no parallel jobs for them there?) and the USA can pull out of India. The concept of unmarried single Indians living away from their parents' home on a salary of their own is a phenomenon mostly started and supported by USA outsourcing to India. There's a tv show "Outsourced" that Indians love watching because so many young Indians work those jobs. I'm happy to help support India and help the country grow into a strong, stable, friendly ally as Indian citizens are helping the USA. I just wish people would realize what's a stake. We need each other to stay strong and grow. Let's not forget that.
The Taliban was not a terrorist organization when it was backed by the US – It did not target civilians. It was an indigenous force for the defense of their homeland against an invader which was dedicated to spreading the Communist system and ideology. Only later did the Taliban become a ruthless force that murdered civilians. I don't see how the US could have anticipated that the Taliban would become so vicious and immoral in the future.
@Raghaven, I doublt in this world there is anyone wish India successful. Indians are very used to live in a dream of their own creation. India doesn't even have a single friend in South Asia - its immediate neighbour. Wake up dude.
Very nice Raghavan.......well said....
Excellent Opinion. It's been long when I have seen a very clear and correct thinking on buying arms, etc from US.
Excellent job Rahul in laying out your arguments!!!!
Well-said. Articles like these are founded on opinion, rendering them naive, and you present fact here. There may be good reasons Lockheed and the military have made off-limits our best jets, but by telling a serious buyer looking to make a purchase that will last for decades, our 'not for sale' attitude has rightfully made us lose this deal.
The US government decides which countries are eligible for a given military export from the US. What India needs is something as good or better than the country they may end up defending themselves against, which could be either Pakistan or China.
Well Rahul, you do make some valid points and have answered Fareed much better than most could imagine. Wonder home much Fareed is paid to lobby for the US. i would have agreed if the Yanks were to give us the F22 stealth fighters, and in any case whats the US cribbing about we have already placed some good order with them for the C17 and other stuff. Both India and the US need each other if the US thinks they can do without us then so be it, just as we learnt during the times the sanctions were imposed to do our own things, we will surely do it without their help though a bit late but we will still manage. in the end we have to fight our own battle the US won't come to our aid with their priorities distraughted. moreover if relations with the US are only to the point of we buying their arms then we do not want such relationships
Writing a magazine article isn't lobbying. You should look up the meaning of the word. Fareed is an American, writing for an American magazine, and his sympathies lie with America. It is unfair to imply that he is paid to be a propagandist for America, which is probably what you mean.
very well written Rahul. The author seems to lack strategic sense himself. I hope CNN bans him forever
.
Rahul,
Very very good points. Good presentation. I agree with rahul. Good Work!!!
Fareed Zakaria: Please reply to Rahul.
Good Presentation???? you morons are GEEKS.
I am actually glad that India did not sign the deal with the US. Why? Well its one of Rahul's points: technology transfer.
India has little regard for respecting "intellectual property" or respecting licenses or patents. Technology transfer essentially becomes "theft" at a certain point.
From generic pharmaceuticals, to solar panels, to source code to blackberry encryption, to stores with stolen logos of world wide brands, India is not friendly to foreign investment.
The less they know about our high end defense technology, the better. Buying an inferior European fighter is adequate for their defense, then fine. And I am happy that India will not have access to the technology.
They have proven themselves time and time again of being untrustworthy. They want the benefits of being a world player, without having their own country open to their partners or scrutiny.
Prime example of this was the US pushing them to have access to nuclear technology at the UN. They get approved, the deal with GE gets scrapped and they sign with a French company. They are not worth the trouble or the business.
Harry, if you ask me, India had a right to accept or reject the offering(s) of any nuclear power company, GE or not.
But it's still pretty darn funny when the US shoots itself in the foot while trying to win approval from the NSG and other regulatory bodies for supply of civilian nuclear technology and then India dumps American companies altogether. Hahaha
@ harry- defence deals are not all about the weapons or their technology, they are strategic and diplomatic decision's nd for ur European technology comment i would say that USAF's chief of staff general himself admitted that the Eurofighter Typhoon is the best jet after the F22 Raptor.
-with or without access to US technology India still has some of the world most potent defense platforms ie; BRAHMOS and the Phalcon AWACS, eve the US cannot match/beat these weapon systems. nd
- if India in future comes under US sanctions we can use these deals as a hedge with the Europeans, the Russians and the Israelis supplied us weapons even when we were under a Us sanction so we get a strategic leverage with Europeans.
From generic pharmaceuticals, to solar panels, to source code to blackberry encryption,
generic pharmaceuticals you said did u read IPR LAWS why and when was allowed and then read old malpractices even some prescription pharmaceuticals you buy is not the best for disease you or i have.you know the fist discovered antibiotic is still strongest. patent expired decades back,its not prescribed to so it last as last resource.what with solar panel ?i am not aware with issue,blackberry encryption did GOI released it to world,they simply said blackberry please stop encrypting or stop service.(they dont want to get into info madness of millions of people with billions or trillions of BBM.loads of resources needed .any public encryption can be broken, i agree there is privacy issue possible misuse also (we live in a insure world).we must be happy someone is making it safer.
to stores with stolen logos of world wide brands,
i never find a store here its INDIA not china ,if find a store please do tell me
India is not friendly to foreign investment.
agree to some extent irony is they are more friendly to foreign investment to local investment. changing slowly
again a nation of back stabbers...
Great analysis Rahul..kudos...To add addl perspective to this argument: India should never mix relations with defense. USA is know to get its way of thiking, most of the times on the right side of the fence but not always. eg; nuclear non proliferation, while USA wants India to stop building nuclear capabilty but they still would not forgo them. that is not fair. Also USA never supported India to have a permanent seat at UN. So Mr. Zakaria where did USA bent over bakwords. In this global ecomony we all need each other. everyone is looking what best for their country, nothing wrong with that.
Rahul: Brilliant analysis.
Bingo Rahul; remember how punitive US congress is; Soviets and now Russia will not do that to india. And yes Inda buys, then assembles and finally builds under license. US will never relinquish control like that. now Israel and India have very close ties and India will use the best avionics Israel has and will also work with France. US has had a pathetic record of backing dictatorships in Pakistan over a socialist SECULAR DEMOCRACY named India.
I think Rahul brings some good insight or probable reasons why India chose not to do the fighter jet deal with America. However, I dont agree that its because it does not want to fund Pakistan indirectly. If that was the case then India would rather want to stop all trade with US, just not only defense deals.
Also, had India made a deal with US on fighter jets, its sphere of influence would have increased in American Politics, but I probably wont be able to quantify by how much.
Fareed:
Normally I find your analyses on point, but I have to disagree with you on this one. @rahul makes excellent points. India protects its self-interests best by spreading the wealth around. India cannot afford a change in the internal political landscape in the USA that could cause sanctions to be imposed based primarily on a political whim of the moment (which happens far too frequently in the US). And I also question the tie-in to policies of the past – most of those guys have long been put to pasture. Do you really believe that the leaders in India are not aware of the threats posed by China and Pakistan? Come on, really!
Wait im confused. Why are the indians buying fighter jets?? To protect the casinos? Someone help me out??
Shut up Beavis!
*smack*!!
Because every country has the responsibility to have enough firepower for its defense – to act as a credible deterrent . Being an American , you should be able to appreciate that very well I suppose !
@Bhaskar, he's making a Native American joke..
What kind of a stupid question is that? What did you smoke before writing this email?
It is hillarious when people can't identify sarcasim.
Dude, You are back with your jokes; I am your great Fan.
While I appreciate the sarcasm, from a Canadian's point of view (and probably from most other "non American's point of view) your comment smack sof the typical ignorance most Americans seem to have about the world outside its borders (ie; if the dicussion is about "indians" it must be about the indians in my back yard, because I have never heard of any other type of indian). Its really a shame about America and its self centered nature. The proof of this is the fact that so many missed the sarcasm in your comment.
good one.hopefully people get the real tone
Good one. Laughed out loud in the ofice after reading the comment. – An Indian with a sense of humor
I agree with Fareed in general but not so sure on this one.
With two hostile neighbors, and having fought 3 wars w/ both of them in the past about 50 years, India will be caught napping, if it is attacked again. China is emerging as a quasi-super power and its hegemonistic hubris is becoming more palpable, especially from the Indo-Chinese border reports, in a subtle way at least.
Pakistan, being a hot bed of terrorism, is a perennial threat. To cap it all, Pakistan, an untrustworhy nation in general, is in cahoots w/ China for some of its military hardware. Hence the Indian hunt for possible first attack weaponry.
The problem with "Spreading wealth around" is that you also spread loyalty around and create no definitive motive for anyone to support you. I think this is Fareeds point. The other point is that India needs the US more than it needs India. In fact other markets are going to emerge in the next few years. The Arab Spring will lead to a new market and new opportunities for educated workers. Many may not get this but I actually think that business ethics in Northern Africa will be more amendable to US sensibilities. Basically, we are all monotheists.
how about US loyalty towards India? Should India completely dismiss the past? As an Indian analyst said – We buy planes to win a war not to build relationships.
How exactly are they "spreading the wealth around"? I see money go into India, but not come out.
Its funny to read these comments when you realize that India's new found prosperity has been founded in large part by "offshore outsourcing" which started in the US. We can certainly survive without outsourcing, but can India survive that if it went away.
So in other words, India is ok taking money from the US as far as offshore industry, but not as an ally? That right there is something you don't want in an ally.
And as far as the fighter jet argument. The f-18 is better than anything the Europeans currently have or are releasing. So whatever the process is to purchase military equipment, its flawed.
Business ethics and monotheism is a non sequiteur. Trade between North African nations and the rest of the world is almost non-existant (aside from management of the Suez canal and cotton) due to political sanctions against terrorist regimes supported by local governments. Politics influences business and terrorism is apparently a bigger whammy than technology and copyright violations so we do business with India, Pakistan and China.
I agree with Rahul's excellent points.
Ok Mr F Zakaria. tell me what pakistan got in return for being an ally of USA. Its imploding with jihadi terrorism once raised against USSR by USA. India can stand on her own we have resources and will to survive. we dont need USA permission even to fart like pakistan. Challenge you economically we will be equal to USA in two decades of time but we grow peacefully with an outlook of "universal brotherhood". coming to china it will implode and fragment under its own waight ....... just wait for my prophecy...thanks
Too optimistic?
India won't get there without a superpower that fast. India will do well and India will strengthen bonds with the US. US wants India to flourish. Maybe if US strengths bonds with India and Pakistan, then maybe India and Pakistan will get over the dumb rivalry. You can't flourish by making enemies with other countries.
Agreed. Besides you need brave pilots as well.
"dumb rivalry" ... ?? rivalry is not an appropriate word in the context of India and Pakistan. I don't think there is any comparison between the two coz they compete in two very different domains and export very different type of services. India cannot excel in the kind of activities that bring fame (did I mean shame?) to Pakistan.
Seriously?? Our country "united States" does this and has been flourishing. Why other's can flourish? Why is there double standard? We Americans setup examples for rest of the world...
Mr. Reddy,
They got billions of dollars and lots of fire-power. Unfortuanately, the Pakistanis neither know how to use the fire power and the money they received (I.E. Corruption). This is not USA's concern unless it is used against US itself
That's a long wishlist you have there, Mr. Reddy.
Has Santa Claus delivered on any of your wishes of the past or do you just like to dream big?
Xenophobic nationalism and expansionism are common in China. Perhaps you remember that there used to be a country called Tibet on your borders? Someday, we may say that there used to be a country called India on Pakistan's borders.
India's decision, not to close a 10 billion worth deal with the U.S. shouldn't be detrimental to the foreign relationship between the two countries. Maybe the withdrawal was not politically motivated, but as a result of a rational choice. No doubt India would need the U.S. as a shoulder to lean on. Also iit needs a strong and reliable ally to wield influence in the region. India is wary of China's rising to power and wants to be a key player as well there as well. The Indians are very shrewd and good at maths. They might have let the Americans down and will make it up with them, when they need a powerful friend again.
Probably, India wanted to buy technology, not just planes. The US didn't want to sell. It's ordinary business – not anything deeper, I don't think. India wants to progress technologically. Is that so wrong?
Ben, I'm not sure, if India doesn't want to improve their technology. India has many smart IT-specialists and they work all over the world. I won't be surprised, if Indians would build sophisticated planes one day.
Fareed-bhai,
From the Bloomberg article you linked to, Boeing and Lockheed wanted to sell India their F-16s/F-18s that were designed in the 1970s. To replace Mig21s that were also designed in the 1970s. Would you buy a 1990 model car to replace your 1990 model car? Or would you buy a 2010 model car to replace your 1990 model car? Come on dude.
I kind of disagree with your premise about who needs who more. You mentioned why India needs US, its true the US presence in Afpak has been net stabilizing for India: the jihadis are mostly going to Afghanistan instead of Kashmir. Its also true that Indian leaders just don't have the maturity to deal in a pragmatic way with Pakistan. Or with any of India's neighbors for that matter. US may be able to help here.
But the US economy is still showing anemic growth, while the Indian economy is growing at 8-9%/year. It isn't just IT outsourcing anymore either, incomes are growing across the spectrum. Walmart/Ford/GE etc would love to sell their stuff to a billion or so consumers.
I'm not sure if India is making the right decision or not but you are comparing Apples and Oranges. Fighter aircraft that had it's airframe designed in the 1970s doesn't mean it is using the same electronics, engines, radar, targeting systems, etc. A better comparison would be to say that you're buying a house that was built in 1970s but is totally renovated and superior to all the other homes built a week ago when it comes to the important details. Although I also think probably as significant would be getting training assistance from the US. Look at how NATO has been doing in Libya. US forces are vastly superior and it's not just about the equipment.
Point : No country in its right senses can ignore a country of India's size, location, one billion plus population and annual growth rate of close to 10%. After three decades of hostility, if the US is paying attention to India now, it is because India deserves it, and not because the US has suddenly turned charitable to India ....... !
Point 2 : India was the target of all kinds of US sanctions since 1974 after it tested its nukes. The NPT, CTBT, FMCT and the Nuclear suppliers group was designed specifically to target India. Therefore by removing these sanctions after three decades, the US have only corrected its past evil policies towards a fellow democracy. In exchange they have already bagged about $ 10 billions of arms deals, and there are more to follow.
Point 3 : The US has lifted nuclear sanctions on India only after allowing Pakistan to lay its hands on nukes during the Reagan administration, thereby making sure India's advantages are neutralized. The sordid saga of Dr AQ Khan's espionage at the Dutch Lab, and gagging of the whistle blowers like Richard Barlow and Sibel Edmonds in the US State Dept. tell a whole different story.
Point 4 : Mending fences with India makes perfect sense for the US now, because of the relative decline of its economy with respect to that of China which will surely dethrone the US in a decade or two. The US needs an ally in Asia of the size and potential of India that can match China.
Point 5 : The US is currently using its relations with India to pressurize Pakistan to do more in the fight against terror, it is a win-win for the US. As far as India is concerned, it makes perfect sense that the US offer the same civilian nuke cooperation to Pakistan (since the damage for India is already done) , because this would not change the security scenario of India from what it already is .... ! Moreover the hype of a favor towards India will no longer be there.
Point 6 : Instances of the US restrictions on supply of spares in the time of need are plenty, and India has had a first hand taste of the same . Therefore it is no brainer that buying the critical weapon systems from the US, or the ones with US parts in it would be a huge strategic blunder, specially in a war scenario with Pakistan. Mr. Zakaria, your US is trying to sleep with India on the first date ...... !
Moreover, American offers of weapon systems to India come with restrictions on TOT and number of strings like the agreements on Logistic sharing, Interoperability etc. which India does not need at this point of time.
To sum it up, the US-India strategic cooperation makes sense only in the long term, China being the compelling factor for both. Hence there should be no rush on India's part.
how about India signs the "non proliferation" treaty? Other than Iran with nuclear weapons, the two nuclear capable neighboring countries of Pakistan and India are the ones that cause me worry.
Non-proliferatoin treaty is beyond childish. Some countries already have nukes, and they claim that need them for self-defense. It is only bad for *other* countries to have them. Of course they don't want proliferation of nukes so that their advantage is maintained. How about the US, UK, Russia and everyone else give up their nukes? Then India will gladly give them up. India needs them for the same reason that US needs them.
The Indian Prime Minister(Dr Manmohan Singh ) has declared it many times that India is ready to sign the NPT but only if India is recognized as a nuclear eapons state. The IAEA and the NSG want India to sign the treaty as a non nuclear weapons State.
if the world recognizes India as a nuclear weapons state, then the country has no problem in signing the treaty.
@ Harry,
You have got your answer why India has no reason to sign NPT in its current form. Besides, are you not worried about the N Korean nukes ?
So true
After all the backstabbing the Indians and Pakistanis have done to America, they are lucky we offer them any form of a relationship. Align yourself with the Chinese and come screaming to us when they bleed you dry.
Cold truth, you sound like a typical ignorant american. When did India back stab you? US government gives billions to india's enem and all these old fighter jets for free, why should India pay for the same stuff that the US is giving to pakistanis like candies.
Actually things are going great between India and China right now. China has opened banks in India to lend Indians money (which they made from you Americans
Indian mystics etc are also allowed to practice in China. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's largest Ashram is not in India but outside Beijing.
Pakistan allied itself to US for 60 years. We've seen what happened to those poor guys. Used and abused.
Fareed-saab, another issue with your article: The elite in both US and India are highly suspicious of China. For good reason. But the Chinese, whatever their faults are highly aware of history. Ten years from now I see India and China pulling closer and sadly, US becoming more irrelevant.
Which country has attacked India in the past? Which country conquered and represses the Tibetans? Which country is a democracy? Think hard, my friend.
Historically China and India have been culturally very close. In fact some of the best historical records of medieval India were written by Chinese buddhist pilgrims.
My point was that in the next few years we'll see the return of history. Everything is in place, decolonization, end of Cold War, an economically powerful China and India etc.
If France and Germany can be friends after 1000s of years of fighting with each other, surely India/Pak/China can be friends as well.
What's a border war or two amongst friends.
Aligning with China is the biggest mistake India will make. Ask the US. They will chew you for what you are worth and then spit you out.
Not necessarily. China-USA have weird historical issues. India-China don't, they have more in common than not.
If you look around (Africa/Middle East etc)the competition is really between India and China, not USA and China.The difference is that the Chinese government is working hard to make this happen. In India's case private companies are doing the heavy lifting, maybe GOI staff are too busy lining their own pockets in New Delhi. I think India is winning the mindshare game at this point though, however only time can tell.
I don't think India has to align herself with anyone. The decision they made about the fighters makes it loud and clear the government doesn't think so either...assuming there was no bribery /golmaal involved.
The US and India are going to align vs China. It's only natural. India is a natural ally to the United States, and vice versa.
I wouldn't take it as given that the US and India's seemingly logical inclination to be strong allies will mature to reality. India had a wonderful chance to strengthen its friendship the US at this present moment. Such chances don't always come along.
I would like to see India and the US as strong allies, especially to balance the growing nationalism in China. These nationalists have designs to occupy great parts of India's northern border areas. The US never invaded India – China has. India shouldn't take for granted that the US would come to their assistance in such an event, and they shouldn't count on Europe risking their trade deals to come to their assistance either.
It saddens me that India blew it. The US will get over it, but in the long run will India?
I wonder if Cold Truth is Chinese. Americans never think of India as anything but a neutral country.
Tell me "Cold Truth"
When Has India Back stabbed the USA?
Or do all foreign countries where the majority of people do not have blond hair blue eyes seem the same to you?
Get your facts right:
India has brought and paid for with cash, 6 x C130J's, 6x P8I naval reconnaisance aircraft, is about to sign a deal worth $4-5 billion for 10 C17 transports with 6 more likely to follow.
Boeing has signed how many deals I don't know to supply passenger jets. US nuclear engineering companies have secured deals to build nuclear reactors. and the list goes on.
Your "Friends" the paks have:
Hidden Osmaa
Supplied, trained Taliban & AQ fighters who kill US troops.
Their ISI service is in partnership with terror.
The 9/11 terrorrists all had pak connections.
The gun attack outside the CIA HQ a few years ago, where did the attacker run to??
The USA has wasted $18-20 billion on pak.
Get your facts rightm your "Cold truth" is nothing but Cold ignorance. The USA/India relationship is more than call centers.
Of course, it's always "the Paks" (as you pointed out).
Who planted the seeds of, lovingly nurtured, protected and fed today's monster of terrorism in Pakistan? The US of A.
Who used and abused Pakistan as a condom at every juncture of history? The US of A.
Who gets to chide Pakistan and its political and military leadership on a daily basis? The US of A.
And the list goes on.
Frankly put, losing a $10 billion dollar arms deal from India doesn't mean anything to the US in the long term. And don't worry, any attention or false notions of friendship that the US might be inspiring in the Indian people are for using India to counter China and Pakistan in the medium to long term.
@ColdTruth: When has Pakistan Backstabbed you? They have always done the dirty work and taken blame for it. Coutresy demands a Thank you.
USA has back stabbed India by giving billions to pakistan which is used to create terror in India. If needed India will stab you in the chest not in the back. We don't have backdoor policies like USA has. You are one ignorant man on the face of this earth.
Hey Cold Truth,
I'm a die hard American from the south. India isn't retard, I think they are bold but right to make there own finacial decisions. Pakistan has looked foolish and weak to there own people for allowing the US to invade and bomb. We look like fools for giving billions to Pakistan while they harboured Bid Laden. I wish the IRS would give me f@%ing refund for all the money wasted.
The COLD TRUTH IS we are flat ass broke as a nation. The dollar crisis is happening.... Other countries know this and now they don't have to pander to us.
@RedBeans You da Man !
@Cold Truth Please get you head out of the Freezer, its about Frozen ! India does not need to align itself with any one, no country needs to align itself with another. These alignments are driven by aggressive people and such aggressive people are found in some countries, I don't need to name them. Countries with internal problems look to divert their peoples attention to a common enemy out side. This is what Pakistan does constantly and China did occasionally with India. As for the US, its foreign policy is driven in recent years by corporate greed.
Fareed,
Normally your views make perfect, but this is surely not one of them.
@Rahul hits the nail right on its head.
@Cold Truth, India is not standing in a line to get charity from USA. Gosh, some people have a lot of sense of grandeur !
India did the right thing.
And Fareed, you'd do well to decouple the informed decision of a democracy from geostrategic concerns. Certainly USA & India have a looooot in common vis-a-vis China.
Reading some of the responses...in other words, India does not trust the US govt to protect the interests of India, what with US supporting Pakistan with billion$$ in aid and weaponry. Who can blame them? I think Fareed Zakaria is thinking like an arrogant ignorant American in this case
Completely disagree with you on this one Fareed. Despite India buying Hercules C-130 and placing many non military orders worth billions of dollars (Locomotives deal with GE and Military Cargo Aircraft deals) the US is putting onus on India to show itself as a serious US partner. As @Rahul has pointed out excellently above the facts of technology share, latest technology and uninterrupted supply of spares were the crucial points in the decision. As for a $15 trillion economy, its rather sad that it select its friends based on a paltry $10 billion deal. Oh and by the way the Americans have also sold F16 to Pakistan...
US is never a serious partner – I would never trust US when it comes to military. Why should India trust US? US has been paying for many deaths in India thanks to thier buddies Porkis. US must be smoking something if they thought all those billions they sent over to pak was used for anti-terrorism activities.
I lost track of what you were saying when I got to the part where you called someone "porkis".
Aren't the streets of New Delhi full of "porkis" roaming around in rubbish and feces?
I have never felt the need to disagree with Fareed before, but for the first time here i do.Yes, India did aligned itself to Soviet Union, but that was then and this is now. Today it wants to distribute its eggs among many nests, and hence doing business with Europe. And why not? Today's politicians and bureaucrats do not think like the way they used to think 30 years back. This is a new India. Also US has only 2 things that it manufactures, one is democracy which India already has and the other is military equipments. BTW, Fareed seems to give way too much credit to the politicians in US, since they are the ones who start unwanted wars and they are the ones who equipped Pakistan and Taliban. Lets face it, that was then and this is now. the world has changed in way too many ways to keep quoting the foreign policy blunders of years gone by.
Fareed – Usually, I like your thoughts on a wide range of topics. However, you just proved that you are just like any other news anchors like wolf blitz who look for favors from the higher-ups. First, America cannot judge the relationship with India on the basis of $10 bn fighter deal. As you correctly said why America is cribbing on a few billion dollar deal and spoiling relationship when the deal amount is nothing compared to 15 trillion dollar economy.
The American attitude is very silly. If they want every deal from India to go to US and going to crib for every deal that didn't go their way, then this attitude is not going to help Americans anyway.
Fareed – Tell me when will the corporate greed of America thinks it has enough profits and stop this vicious propaganda on other countries? Tell me the strategy of America, first and then I'll tell u what Indian strategists are thinking.
Everyone above have made excellent points and on this point I do not agree with Fareed, but has anyone stopped and considered another point that known the history of Indian politicians that some corrupt decisions have been made?
"Secondly, the rise of China is the big strategic problem for India over the next 25 years and once again the single most important outside power in the context of the rise of China is the United States. This is true from an economic, political and military point of view." "America is a very useful interlocutor because India’s and America’s interests in a place like Afghanistan are identical: stability and the absence of terror groups. India could gain a very powerful ally in America who also has enormous influence over Pakistan." YOUR SAYING THINGS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. .. CHINA IS A MORE OF A THREAT TO THE US AND ITS HEGEMONY, NOT TO INDIA AS MUCH. THE US WANTS PEACE IN AFGHAN MORE THAN INDIA.. YOU SEEM TO BE ALL CONFUSED..
Fareed,
I enjoy your show, books and articles. However, in this case you have simplified a more complex scenario.
The US has a bad track record of withholding key technologies and systems during crises and memories are long in India. US arms also come with numerous strings attached (like CISMOA). There were issues with transfer of technologies and to top it all, the offered aircraft were behind technologically compared to the Typhoon and Rafale.
If the US made it easier to do business, offered the top of the line JSF and inspired confidence with written guarantees of uninterrupted supply, the deal could have been won. In any case, India is still buying billions worth of C17s and P8Is and they won't be the last.
Fareed – interesting analysis.
Are Indian domestic politics a factor? Is there anything to be gained from voters by being anti-American right now?
India is one of the most pro US countries. Just to give an analogy, evens the sons and daughters of Leftist MPs and MLAs go to US to study and some stay there permanently. Check the stats before you open your mouth.
Rude personal comments in a public forum just goes to say the ignorance, arrogance and immaturity of the person. Yes almost all of India wants to move to US. but the elite almost never votes and the poor just don't care who we buy our millitary aircrafts from. So hence it is highly unlikely it is public pressure that forced the Govt to buy from Europe rather than from US.
Mike, it is purely a technical decision, Typhoon and Rafael are much better aircarfts and they will share technology. Also some people make ignorant comments. India buys more from the USA then it exports, we gets jobs but we also creat jobs. So USA needs India as much as India needs them.
Fareed, I agree that India should have cut the deal with US this time and forge a strategic alliance. I will not agree with your analysis of situation during the cold war. I think India and it leader were more interested in intitution building than freeing economy. They took longer time but whatever india is today it is becasue they stay firm on their centrist philosophy. And i agree the leaders today should come out and be bold and should not hesitate dealing with US, but I think pakistan comes in the way. and rightly. I think you are just trying to please a different set of followers , which I understand.. but truth of the matter is India whatever it is today it is because of the centrist Gandhian policy.
Really a disappointing article from Fareed ! I thought he doesn't write while he is drunk or stoned ! This guy became real USA-whipped ! Indian's need to understand that their enemies are never the Asians. Colonizers came from far side of the oceans. Only by a strong Asia you can earn Global respect. As an expatriate I feel it every moment.
I am a fan of your GPS show and all your analysis make perfect sense to me except this one. This is completely one sided and you have ignored the other defense deal which is also close to $10 billion between US and India (C-17 Globemaster-III, P-8I Poseidon, C-130J).
You have said many times in your shows that the future is going to be multi-polar with many power centers. From India's perspective its good to maintain healthy bilateral ties with many different countries rather than becoming completely dependent the US.
Also like people above have said the F/A-18's and F-16's are from the 1970's and India need to use these air crafts for the next 30 years!
A buyer who is willing and able to pay is never too wrong or too late.
Fareed,
Why do you have to bring so much common sense to the table?
II always like your views. but i think here you jump the gun. What is the need of such a relationship if it gets soured with one deal?Why you think america has privilege right to get this deal? America has very complicated and strict end user agreement. America has also sold almost similar planes to Pakistan an arch-rival to India . By offering similar planes, america is making mockery of Indian strategic planner.
Farheed – Just like everyone above, this is the first time I disagree with you and would really like you to respond to all the excellent points made by Rahul, Neel and others,
Do you think that it would be a good idea for a America to hedge its interests by backing India's rise over china?
Fareed, this is very shallow analysis on your part. Rahul and others have pointed out the reasons why the american planes were not selected. However, I would like to point out why your panning of the past record of India's strategic thinkers is wrong. You seem to be a firm believer in the post WW-II American Foreign policy adage of "You are with us or against us" ... India's stated foreign policy has been of non-alignment which basically means that we were not allied to any block during the initial years of the cold war. India aligned with the Soviet Union only after the following incidents. 1) India chose Mig-21 way back in 1960s after it was refused the F-104 Starfighter by the US (which was incidentally supplied to Pakistan). 2) India and Soviet Union signed a defence pact called "Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation only in Aug 1971 when an Indo-Pak war (caused by the genocide by the Pakistan army in East Pakistan) was imminent and inspite of knowing the truth US supported Pakistan (refer State Dept Archives for "South Asia Crisis of 1971" and Blood Telegrams). In fact US President Nixon & Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi a "bitch" after one of their meetings in 1971. So it was the US Foreign Policy which drove India into the willing arms of the erstwhile Sovient Union. Now let me point out other follies of the US Foreign Policy from which India was affected. The arming of the mujahedeen by the US to fight the USSR in Afghanistan has led to India facing jehadi attacks since late 1980s. The ISI (which was great buddies with CIA till few years back) siphoned money and arms supplied by the US and Saudi Arabia and directed them to jehadis in Kashmir. It took India more than a decade and thousands of lives (both civilians and security personnel) to get a good handle on this jehadi terror. US also put sanctions on India after the 1998 nuclear tests which had a significant impact on India's indigenous fighter aircraft programme called the LCA (LM was a development partner and pulled out after US Govt put sanctions in place). Lastly, US has been supplying arms to Pakistan under the guise of War on Terror. Arms which have nothing to do with War on Terror (F-16 Block 52s, USS MCINERNEY/PNS Alamgir, torpedoes etc.) which will be used by the Pakistanis not against Al-Quaeda or Taliban but India. US has infact turned a blind eye to admissions made by the Gen Musharraf that he has diverted majority of the aid given by US for WoT for beefing up the Pakistan Army against India. Given this long history, it is intellectually dishonest of you to put all the onus of improving the Indo-US relationship squarely on Indian shoulders. Also, India does not need a transactional relationship with the US where each transaction is treated as a potential dealbreaker or dealmaker. This is not how strategic partnerships are made or driven.
India's past history is full of mistakes. Vallabhbhai Patel would have been great PM for India, Nehru was just a dreamer and impractical, joined useless non-alignment, Indira Gandhi brought corruption in Indian politics, brought emergency rule, developed close relationship with Russia, now Sonia is ruling India and immatured Rahul will be next PM to continue Nehru dynesty. India was moving in right direction with free economic policy guided by USA. India do not understand in depth the importance of good relationship with USA. There peaceful existence in Asia is not possible without support of USA. Basically, Indians are more sentimental and emotional and never taken any decision very intelligently so far.
I have tremendous respect for Mr Zzakaria and think he is one of the smartest person on TV. However I strongly disagree with ONE POINT! India needs US more than US needs India. I dont think so. I think if you look beyond a political perspective to a business perspective, this is a completely incorrect statement. Even if past decisions of India were strategy failures in regards to USSR, China etc...I dont think US politicians can afford to say they have made best decisions. I mean one decade create Al Qaeda, the next decade fight them, current decade make Pakistan and I bet in the next fight them. Good strategy.
A rejoinder, yes India perhaps needs America more than America needs India at present, but in a long term perspective the reverse is likely to be true when China will have left the US far behind in terms of Economic might. Therefore it needs to be clearly understood that US-India strategic cooperation is envisaged for a long term keeping China in focus.
Fareed,
I agree with you 9 time out of 10 but this is not one of them. Buying military hardware is a complex web of technology assessment and also political and future considerations. As an American your points are true but unfortunately India has to look at the world from its own lens. Hope America is not niave (I am sure it is not) enough to take this personally.
My 2 cents. Karan.
I don't agree with your views Fareed. First of all US did not do any favor on India by signing the nuclear treaty, it needed India to sell its nuclear raw material and reduce it's debts. Secondly India has proved that it has the capability to think on it's own and does not need to grease the US hands to survive in this world.
I think most of the comments are missing the main point of the article which is that the Indian government is making senseless and arbitrary decisions that are not based on sound policies but rather just taking a gamble. While it can be argued that perhaps this decision is favorable to India (only time will tell) the fact is that a positive outcome would be entirely fortuitous and not a direct result of well thought policies.
Specious arguments by Fareed. India did just fine staying non-aligned but leaning toward SU during the cold war. You have to realize that after independence in 1945, India had <5% literacy and nearly 70% population was malnourished. Indian strategic culture is clearly different in its approach and outlook but it has served India well and will continue to do so in the future. Second, whats the point in buying American fighter planes that are a generation behind? They come with ridiculous strings attached that would very likely prevent IAF from using them in instances incongruent with US interests. US is looking for a client state – not a partner. Fareed, of all people should know that, India will maintain its strategic autonomy even at the expense of its relations with the US. Lastly, US has spent the last 60 years containing India by supporting Pakistani military adventures against India. Old habits die hard and unless US stops supporting the Pakistani military, India should maintain a safe strategic distance from the US. Call the Indians stubborn and "unstrategic" but these are the terms – take it or leave it.
Independence in 1947 – not 45 (typo)
Fareed, don't get ahead of yourself. I respect you greatly, and have high expectations from you in the future. But you still have some way to go when comparing yourself to the strategic thinking capability of Manmohan Singh and his crew.
" The fundamental fact is India needs the United States more than the United States needs India. The U.S. economy is $15 trillion; "
your mistaken The U.S. economy is $15 trillion in debt.
I totally agree – India blew it yet again!
Wrong assumption, It was not India who chose to go closer to USSR, Rather it was USA which push us away from her... During Chinese Invasion, Mr Nehru asked help from USA, USA denied to help.. That was last nail on the Indo-US relation.
I normally don't comment, even when I disagree. But this comment is flat out ignorant. US did support India during the 1962 invasion from China. US supplied Lockheed C-130 Hercules troop transport planes so that India could move troops to the Himalayan front. That was the main reason China ceased fire and retreated. Nehru and others thought that that Assam would be next and all of NE India would fall to the Chinese. He actually wanted Kennedy to authorize American pilots to fly bombing raids on the advancing Chinese (Nehru's letter is in the State Department archives and it's in the Henderson Brooks Report from the Indian Army to the Govt. of India). It's true that the US didn't go that far, but then it wasn't necessary anyway because of the Chinese retreat. You have to remember also that this happened during the same time as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nehru wanted Khruschev support against Mao's invasion, but Khruschev refused to even criticize Mao. It was the Hercules troop transport planes sent by Kennedy that made the all the difference.
Please learn a little history before making stupid comments!
The argument presented by Mr. Fareed Zakaria is subjective and lack substantial logic. It might appear to him that India had made a mistake by getting Close to Soviet Union during the cold. He is free to make such an analysis but he is ignorant of the fact that after independence US has not showed any interest in helping India to develop. India's relations with Soviet Union helped in initial industalisation. Soviet Union stood with India in the crucial war during the time of Bangaldesh's liberation.
On the war in terror, I am sorry to say but US only recognised that something is wrong only after 9/11. We have see how David Coleman Headly who is one of the prime conspirator in the Mumbai terror attack has not been handed over to India. Headely has to be prosecuted in India, he is committed crime against the Indian people. I completely disagree with the offer Mr. Zakaria is making to help India Vis a Vis Pakistan. Even America only buy the help, as proved in the recent operation Geronimo. American despite their tall claims do not believe Pakistani army and intelligence so advising India will be helped by America is not a rational viewpoint. It is also important to note that America till date had not shown any keen interest in pressuring Pakistan to hand over the India' s most wanted terrorists who are hiding in Pakistan. Why instantly India should believe that US will come to its rescue.
Lastly, it is futile to present an argument in the post-financial crisis world order that India desperately need US. China factor is also not a relevant one. China poses bigger challenge to the US than to India. Indian economy is growing andUS companies have their vested interest in Indian market. But China is a strategic challenge for the US not so much for the India.
Lastly, on the buying of jets from Europe. Indian Air force has given a concrete technical reason for its selection, which is not objected on technical ground. Indian Air Force has every right to evaluate different proposals and selected it deem fit. It is better to comment on the strategic relations than to say only if we buy from America our strategic relationship will improve. In my understanding this is like serving the interest of one segment than of entire nation. Indo-US relationship is important, we share common and principle positions on several international issues and it will be the basis of our relationship not the issue as from where India is importing its good.
Fareed,
I disagree with you on this. The US deal was no good for India. US was offering 4th generation planes (that too with no technology transfer) and Euro deal was for 4.5 generation planes (with technology transfer) . If US offered something like 5th generation planes, India would have been be more than happy. Also, as other users have posted, this isnt the only deal. India has another deal with US, worth $10 billion for C-17 Globemaster-III, P-8I Poseidon, C-130J. So, please dont selectively highlight some facts and conveniently ignore the others.
The India needing US / US needing India is crap argument. You dont become friends because you need something from each other and you dont become enemies just because you dont make deals. If you have a nuclear capable failed state like Pakistan right beside you, you would be dumb to pay for the same outdated stuff (F-16 from 1970s) which your enemy already has, and gets for free.
This American author only talks about what India has to gain or lose in its relationship with the US. Not a single word about Europe, which will now make the deal. The European economy is comparable with the American one. And on the political level it was France and not the US who ended India' nuclear isolation. Finally, the US-India relationship shouldn't depend on such a deal. And the reason for the US policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan (where also European troups are fighting) is altruism towards India but US interests. Saying that "India is not thinking" because it doesn't buy US products and doesn't recognize how "dependent" India is on the US is quite arrogant.
This American author only talks about what India has to gain or lose in its relationship with the US. Not a single word about Europe, which will now make the deal. The European economy is comparable with the American one. And on the political level it was France and not the US who ended India' nuclear isolation. Finally, the US-India relationship shouldn't depend on such a deal. And the reason for the US policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan (where also European troups are fighting) is NOT altruism towards India but US interests. Saying that "India is not thinking" because it doesn't buy US products and doesn't recognize how "dependent" India is on the US is quite arrogant.
Freed I watch your program. I think you articulate well, but I think in this case you’re deliberately being mischievous!
India took all the right decisions; Pakistan’s took all the wrong decisions out of hatred of India and the U.S.A only for their self interest. What have you backed in Pakistan? Fanatic’s religious leaders, corrupt greedy General and the ISI. But never the elected government or democracy. So India has democracy, freedom and Pakistani one hell hole. And that my friend is being Allies of America!!!
America is a capitalist country and it like to be in good terms with China and India. And at the same time try to use India as leverage against China- No deal. America as a country is like a rich juvenile; India and Chinese are very ancient cultures who lived and shared cultures from ancient times. They are not fooled by the Americans.
It would be wrong to think India needs America and the Americans are somewhat omnipotent. You failed in every war in Asia, and Middle East. You’re in a mess. You don’t have the men power to take on the Chinese [you have the best weapons] and there you need India to balance. That is if India is going to play your cards!
If the U.S.A real wanted to be sincere friend, couldn’t they have given cast iron guarantee that in the events of conflict they would not cut off supply of spare parts etc? They did not, so why blame India. They are only looking after their own interest and paying money; as if these fighters are a gift from the American!
America is no really friend, only what they can use other to further their own interest.
Since you like recommending books on your program. May be you or the Americans should read. Book by Douglas Hurd [foreign Minster during Mrs Thatcher PM and your best allies] Choose your weapons. “Americans are single minded when they pursue their interest.” Unquote.
I don't agree with your statements and others above me have mentioned sufficient reasons for the same. I just want to mention one thing, comparing 30 year old "Strategic planners" or government with the current ones is like saying Obama is responsible for acts of the Bush government! Just to be clear, I am not fully convinced that the old decisions mentioned by you were entirely incorrect and without proper reasoning.
I cannot recall a single article from Fareed that has his "followers" disagree with him almost unanimously. I am a fan of Fareeds Writings. Future of freedom to this day is my favourite Books. My response to this article will be more nuanced than others. True, india doesnt have best strategists. I can point to various strategic failures in the past. Our current policy at responding to pak based terror the most ongoing glaring blunder so i agree on that to an extent. I am more neutral on the arms deal itself. Frankly i dont know much about the technical merits. But i dont see why either getting this deal or not is such a big deal either for US or India one way or another. I disagree that india's Non aligned movement was such a "blunder". name me one country that allied too closely to US or USSR that didnt get its fingers burnt in cold war? Non aligned was best. Apart from israel there is no single country which has benifited greatly by being a US ally.Even Uk paid its price in Iraq War. Who has US chosen as an ally? Saudi arabia, mubarak (not egypt), pakistan... find me a regime that is against its people and you have a US ally. US forign policy since world war 2 is a complete disaster. The best thing to do in dealing with US is look for your self interest, just like the chinese do. I am not saying we all be like china for its a bad regime, but deal with US like the chinease do and you are best off. The article seems to suggest India would have been better of aligning to US in cold war rather than towrads USSR ..really?? So the suggestion is Pakistan chose the right side and India the wrong?? really?? and whats the evidence of that?? US used pakistan to set up the jihadis – arm the mosnter ISI and create this headache for the world and most importantly ruin the pakistani citzens life. India turns out to have benefited from its distance from US. So saying that india lost out in cold war by choosing the wrong ally just doesnt stand to basic scrutiny. As to the failure of US foreign policy. Think about the afghanistan war. US pays billions to pakistan. pakistan diverts those money to harbour and arms terror groups in afghanistan and India. US then fights those terror groups. So What we have essentially is the brilliant US forign policy where they are infact financing a war against their own troops. Tax money paid by hard working Americans mothers and fathres are being diverted to a country (pakistan) which uses that money to kill its own sons fighting a war there. can there be a foreign policy that is more pathetic?
As an Indian, let me remind you Mr, Fareed that it was the US that formed an alliance with Pakistan BEFORE India allied with the USSR. The uneven support to Pakistan on Kashmir issue and the CENTO SEATO pacts right from the 1950s while India had no superpower ally was entirely the US fault. Indian stratgic thinkers had to make the best of the situation and ally with the USSR even though it was not the preferred choice.
The same applies now, the US needs to treat India as an equal partner rather than the use and abuse relationships it has had with Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt in the past and other 3rd world countries.
Very narrow minded thinking. US didn't do anything out of the way for India, didn't even stopped arming Pak which was against India any day. So! why would India do some thing against its national interest. Indias strategy is very clear about hedging and they are hedging not only with US but also EU and thats all it is.
Mr.Zakaria,So you are saying that doing business with USA is good,not doing business with USA is bad.
I am not so sure. I think that Indians see us befriending Pakistan even when they protect bin Laden for years.
I wouldn't trust US if I was India.
Symbiotic relationships are the ultimate prize, but for now the US gains far more from India, than the other way around. It will be years, even decades, before equilibrium is obtained, but India's 'slow and steady' progress mantra, rooted in millennia old cultural sophistication and tolerance, will ultimately prevail. I only wish that we can revisit this discussion in 2030 or 2035! I am afraid, until then, it appears as if you are "Fareed 180" on this viewpoint!
Beside all that, we just make better planes!
Nice fact checking Fareed. India invaded China. You can wikipedia the subject under "Sino-Indian War". India built fortifications along its border with China, and actually invaded China and built fortifications north of the border (the McMahon Line) before it turned into a shooting conflict. Likewise, India put more troops into the area than China did by a ratio of more than 3 to 1 (20,000 Indian troops to 6,000 Chinese troops) and started doing so for several months prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Even with the advantage of having troops present to acclimate themselves for months and fortified positions, the Indian army got pummeled by the Chinese. I'm not saying this to insult the Indian military so much as to correct the patent misstatement you've made that Chairman Mao invaded India. India invaded China and started a war it couldn't finish and it was lucky that the Chinese were satisfied with pushing the Indian army back to the original border.
Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia!!
I would like to get the facts correcred that it was China that invaded India. India only defended it's borders
Sharma, Charles stated it correctly. India invaded China and while the US downplays it, we do acknowledge it. You don't have to wikipedia it. The United States Marine Corps Staff College produced a paper in 1984 (it's lengthy at about 50 pages) detailing the chronology and causes of the conflict. It's unequivocal that India crossed the border into China and set up fortifications in China before China decided to escalate it into a shooting conflict. You can read the USMC official analysis at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm
If you read it, you will notice that it credits China with being incredibly magnanimous in victory – preserving what it perceived as the border status quo as well as actually giving India approximately 70% of what India invaded China to claim in the first place. The Chinese were apparently very generous with India.
Lol, what do you expect, Charles? A talk-head employed in the U.S. was going to state the FACT that democratic India invaded communist China?
One simple starategy change US needs to take as quick action. Stop hiring indian student as engineers in the U.S because because we are solving their unemployment problems inadtion to providingthem with technology just as we did with china. Look where china is now, we borow money rom them and we are held hostage with their U.S money in bonds. Same thing will happen with India. STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPP providing them with technology and don't hire their graduate in the U.S. We know we have a very weak and stupide congress.....
Disagree. As an Indian who was in US as a student, I can say very confidently that no "technology" is being "transferred" from US to India or any other country that way – if anything it has been beneficial to the US, by building human relationships crossing national, race and color barriers: such relations are more likely to stand the test of time. Just take a look at the pathetic next generation in US, for whom most of the "science/knowledge" comes from googling around and from non-authoritative sources such as wikis, talk-shows and social-networks. I can sort of understand your frustrations from being in a bad economy, but to suggest that somehow knowledge and science is exclusively for for the west and not for all of humanity is just plain arrogance and ignorance. Perhaps what you need is a true lesson in the origin and evolution of human civilization.
You got it right buddy !
Honestly, I am very suprised by this "totally wrong analysis" of this whole deal by Mr Fareed Zakaria. It just does not make sense. I started reading it and just could not continue further.
Fareed,
Big fan of yours but on this one....you totally disappointed me! This article does not justify your kind of intellect. Do write a follow up to reflect your true-self. For the first time you sounded very ignorant about history of subcontinent...
-jay
Shocking, that CNN let it get published- this article definitely needed some homework, please refer to similar news on http://www.times.com- would be self-explanatory.
I disagree with India stand not buying Jets from US when US truly did too much for them in recent months. Never forget It is only US who can keep Pakistan on it toe or India would be in big trouble now from spill over. What I do not get why India don’t give up Kashmir as independent state to stabilize their Nation which is only dispute between two countries and only reason why India is spending all this money. If this is about Pakistan then India must not forget if fight broke down between two countries every Pakistani have minimum of 2 AK47's and few thousands bullets at their house all of the time just for sport and know very well how to use them. Gun is a culture in Pakistan and it do not matter their current condition or issues but when it comes to defending country it will be Indian on the receiving end. I think both Nations (Pakistan and India) must work together to get out of this ARM race and focus on poor people in their countries who need same money for food. Trade rockets for food.
I also belong to same state and I don't want to join Pakistan. U r echoing the wishes of few Muslim leaders and not all the residents of this state. If they really want to go they r free to do so. They have their Godfathers in Pakistan and they can go to them.
Mr. Ramrajmran, if India and Pakistan do solve all of their outstanding disputes, including Jammu & Kashmir, who will buy the over-priced, obsolete Western military equipment?
So it's in the best interest of the Western military-industrial complex to have different states in a perpetual state of conflict if they want to ensure their lavish lifestyles including exotic sports cars, multi-million dollar mansions and private jets.
The world is a global market. Gone are the days when USA was the main port of purchases. India made a strategic decision to augment their national defense. Unfortunately US Companies were unable to complete with European market for the upcoming sales. It's high time for USA companies to re-evaluate the whole go-to-market strategy. And, stop blaming others do do well to complete in a global market.
You are right on Fareed. The Indian politicians are not strategic thinkers they are open to whoever can place more money in their pocket! Disgustingly corrupt and shameful.
US believes in a market system, and India as a customer thought that the US product is not up to the par, so they selected a product they thought is better then what is in the market. Well done India! Why make it a big deal.
Mr. Zakaria is wrong in believing that the ties are forged by buying and selling of the stuff, it is the trust and the respect that the countries have, US has to earn it, as their ties change every 4 years, and they will change again come election time. Once you have the trust and the respect of a friend, then comes the sharing and caring.
Fareed
I don't agree with you. You may havn't understood the history after second world war when cold war started.
The first Prime Minister, Nehru tried to aligned with USA first, he invited all American companies to India. Every American company was in India, in 50s, 60s. But what USA realized is that it can't get unquestioned support from India due to it's democracy, whereas it gets that type of support from Pakistan, due to the fact it was being ruled by dictators. So naturally, USA started supporting Pakistan. During 1971 war between India and Pakistan, USA aligned with Pakistan. All weapons used by Pakistan in that war, are supplied by Pakistan.
In 1974, USA put sanctions on India (after India's nuclear test) and stopped fuel to nuclear power plants supplied by US itself. This created a situation, India had to get fuel supplies from France, USSR and other EU countries. Ofcourse, it was good for India, as it started developing own nuclear fuel, heavy water and other technologies, after realizing it shouldn't depend upon others technology.
Thereafter, India started insisting either joint ventures, transfer of technology in all defence contracts. Whereas countries like France, Russia etc., are ready to establish production units in India, US is not. Because of this rule, I think India may not buy critical defence equipment from any country that doesn't allow transfer of technology or establishing production units in India.
Good points. The US should let India develop things on it's own or with other countries if they insist on getting technology transfer. The only way it would make sense to transfer technology to India would be if India was part of a formal alliance that limits it's ability to transfer technology to enemies of the U.S. - and yes, I know the US has sent some technology to India in the past (or offered to).
India has impeccable record of keeping the technology within it's own borders. Never proliferated or shared dual-use technologies with any country.
Given India's experience with US's sanctions in the past, it was too big a risk to entrust such a critical piece of one's defence infrastructure to the US. In addition the 2 fighter jets offered by US were not state of the art compared to the European fighter jets. The F16 is part of Pakistan's core airforce inventory . There would have been no competitive advantage to India to with a F16 . In addition a F16 is no longer a state of the art aircraft . Although it has proved itself worthy in many wars, it was designed during the cold war and considering India is looking for this figther aircraft to serve it for the next 30-40yrs, the F16 does not have a roadmap that extends that long. Second, the F18s are primarily Naval aircrafts and not suited for land warfare.. The third issue that India had was US was not willing to do a TOT of critical components such as the AESA radar and the irritants such as India requiring to sign agreements that would allow US to inspect the aircrafts. I guess from a US standpoint that's fair . That's not something India wants to sign up for...
Keep in mind, between the upcoming C17 deal, the C130J , the P-8I deals, India has already committed to more than $10bn worth of defence agreements and there could be more in the coming areas. Overall India made the right call. The MRCA competition was about getting a sanction-free , state of the art aircraft and the best fighter jets won the competition.
India's Decision is in the best interest of India. Not in the best interest of America.
Let's see if the Europeans can deliver.....chaos seems to reigning pretty well right now in the EuroWorld....does India really want to be caught short if something goes awry......stay tuned.....
Fareed, It's a disappointing article from you. I totally agree with comments made by Rahull
I disagree. The US doesn't really give updated support (repair parts etc) and can hit a country with a sanction at any time. Also russian jets, and i assume Euro ones too, are built to last 3-4 decades because these countries cant afford to buy new aircraft every 15-20 years like the USA could. The US are also offering jets that aren't as good as the ones the Euro's are offering, the ones the USA are going to phase out.
Fareed talks from both ends. Can't trust this guy on any subject.
I really like the people of USA and it's a great country. What I have realized is that the common American man is very naive and doesn't have clue about the cloak and dagger politics that the Govt. of US plays with the rest of the world. History has proven that you do not want to get too close to the US, neither do you want to make enemies out of them. A healthy distance is good. That way you can take independent decisions without them dictating to you what you should be doing.
Well said Fareed! As an Indian, i can say time and again that the Indian govt. thinks it's smart; It absolutely is not; only the private sector of India is smart. India govt. is still evolving & trying to reinvent the wheel in everything they do, rather than adopt some tried & tested successfull strategies (or better, avoid repeating the same mistakes).
Long term alignment with US is critical (cannot be overemphasized), even for a single reason where you are looking at a scerario of Pakistan & China invading Kashmir, sharing it between themselves, and China policing the treaty. Europe, as an ally will be bickering on what to do when to help India, while the US, as a partner will be the only one to have the b**s to protect India (if it has a vested interest with India).
Fareed,
For the first time in years i find your argument to be absolutely hollow! If $10 billion wasn't a big deal, you wouldn't have pen down this article in the first place. You have conveniently ignored the fact that these deals generate several billions more over the years for manufactures towards maintenance, upgrades......and not to mention the thousands of jobs it directly and indirectly creates.
I find it hilarious when you say USA bent over backwards to do favors for India in the nuclear domain. Let me ask if I can, Who's the first beneficiary with ending India's nuclear apartheid? It's a $100 billion market and USA gets the bulk of it.
Out of everyone, you should know better, in the world of international politics/alliances, nobody does anyone a favor. Period!
Fareed is spot on as usual. What ingrates after all that the US has done for India... Keep living in that delusional non-aligned world but next time you need help, be sure to head to those European capitals and not come begging to us.
May be you like to explain what wonders U.S.A done for India and that U.S.A didn’t benefit?
As the Americans say there are no free meals.
What have we given India ?
The H1B Visa ... which we need to end now.
Billions of dollars of foreign aid.
I could go on.
India is a nation full of carpetbagging delusional nitwits.
In the end they will crawl into bed with whomever feeds this delusion.
Manish J, you are an idiot or a Pakistani. India doesnt need to beg, check the facts the Government of India has $500 BILLION is foreign exchange reserves and the USA has $1.5 trillion in DEBT, who needs to beg. No India for sure.
First have the guts to use your Pakistani name instead of pretending to be an Indian. Since you’re a Pakistani, there’s nothing to be answered to people who spend most of their times in terrorism and begging on the international scales.
You Pakistani who pretend to be American; whenever you need to be anti Indian. Otherwise you shit in the same plate you eat or try to blow up the country that feed you. India never asked for foreign aid and as for HIB Visa it is of mutual advantage. Anyway Pakistanis requires no explanation. Now get back to your true profession of blowing up America, begging and hiding terrorists.
Fareed, I generally agree with your analyses on the domestic and even international affairs. But this time you have got it wrong. First of to say that India's foreign policy and cold war position was a failure is like sounding ignorant about the geo-political conditions during the 1950-1990 era. You should have known better since you actually have grown up in India during this period. We were theoretically non-aligned during the cold war. But non- aligned is not so practical and we were close to USSR since that is where our chances of getting resources/aid/technical knowhow were great. And though the USSR has collapsed we have good relations with russia and other soviet constituents. We have good relations with islamic states (saudis and iranians included) save of course pakistan. At the same time we also have a good relationship with israel, a country with whom we had no diplomatic relations with during the cold war. So though not perfect our strategists have generally done it right since I feel most countries see us as positive, kind and god-fearing people. Now as far the F/A-18 deal you mentioned, It sounds very immature of the US if it says that the deal was the basis of healthy bilateral relations. Bilateral relations are defined by common interests, common values and historic/geopolitical forces (very complex stuff). But your overstatement of the importance of this deal makes USA look like a pompous and cocky young man who thinks he should get everything (my way or the highway). I think this also points out IMHO the difference in attitudes between the two countries. The USA looks like a aggressive egoistic businessman who is only interested in getting deals done and taking away the cash. India on the other hand is the consumer who is trying to evaluate what is best not just in terms of present cost and quality but also in terms of long term dependability.
Under the geopolitical conditions in the area India may have made the correct decision The past unconditional US support for Pakistan and treating India's friendship towards the US as a given has left a scar in the US-India relationship.
The US establishment saw or still see??? India as a country that when the chips are down will be aligned with the US against any other powers in SE Asia. (China?) and does not have to nurture the relationship.
The fighter deal with India is not a very large transaction but it is symbolic with regards to India's attitude towards the US past policies in that area of the world, and the perception of India that the US in any regional conflict may cut its supplies of spare parts etc for this crucial fighter system.
Let us not dwell on this minor purchase and look forward on the bigger issues that affect the peace, freedom and prosperity of the Indian subcontinent, for which the US and India must cooperate In the near future there are more important problems which need to addressed in that area which will require the close cooperation of India and the US.
Fareed, you are knowledgeable guy, I understand that. You are writing as if you know what's the right thing to do. Let me ask you a question – what do you think about war on terror. Do you feel it is justified? I bet, as you mentioned in the article "unable to forge a stable relationship itself for all kinds of historical reasons", for similar "historical reasons" you will not support it.....
For the very first time I am beginning to question Fareed's obectivity and understanding of the world or it seems he too got sold out. I think India did the absolutely the right thing. And Fareed, please read your book again and you will realize that you'll realize that US does need India. Ask any CEO and he'll tell you the same. US;s economy might be 15 trillion but India has a bigger middle class then US's population. I guess one more shallow unreasaoned, unresearched article like this and I'm not wasting time on Fareed's analysis. BTW, some of the people here seem to be 100 times more informed and objective than Fareed.
I have to agree with Zakaria on this one, although I understand many of the excellent points raised by those who disagree. Here's why... 1) U.S. interests in the region have shifted and evolved from what they were during the cold war, and closer relations with India would benefit both. Those who point out that Pakistan did not fare well from its relations with the U.S. – and, conversely those who point out that the U.S. did not fare well either – speak to surface observations but miss some realities. India would clearly benefit from a closer alignment as would the U.S. 2) The cold war situation that gave rise to U.S. sanctions against India will likely never be repeated. 3) Those who think that Europe will be a more reliable military supplier/partner or that the Eurofighter is a better product are probably mistaken. On paper the EF might look more attractive, but in reality it has experienced many problems, not the least of which are problems related to its multi country production chain. And anyone who thinks the EU would not impose sanctions if earnestly requested by the U.S. is probably naive. 3) Those who have written the U.S. off as a declining power are getting way ahead of reality. Like it or not, the U.S. economy is staggeringly large and much stronger than many seem to credit it, and the U.S. military will have no serious rival for decades.
Anyway, the Indian government has made its choice. Good luck with those Eurofighters.
Okay Fareed,
1. Place both hands on your eyes, palms facing inside.
2. Take a deep breath. Hold for couple of seconds.
3. Exhale
4. THINK BETTER. Have some coffee...or...wait it muggles up the brain, cancel the coffee-just think better.
Regards,
His Awesomeness
Interesting read Mr. Zakaria and insightful as usual. Working with Indian IT companies every day and hope that policy makers are listening. A Fan.
i am suprised that arms deals can affect international relationships. isn't arms dealing supposed to be a private enterprise? i if not, then is this why the US starts wars all over the place? to sell arms?
Umm... that's exactly why the US indulges in unnecessary wars based on fabricated "evidence": to sell more of its over-priced, sub-par military equipment.
Hmmmm, how can you say India made a big mistake? They have their "SPARE PARTS" supplier right at hand and they don't have to worry about America holding out on them due to some political agenda. Hell they're still mad at us about Pakistan.
First, US cant just give weapon A to India and they sale Weapon B to pakistan.. You cant please all, either you please side A or side B when both sides are born enemy.. Keeping on proving aid and free stuff to PAK wont please Indian policy makers, secondly, helping Indian side would make life difficult in PAK as none of this two country would accept US dealing with both...
That's the main and that's the only problem where..
It's either PAK or India, as when US wants to please both, both see US as wrong..
India buys USSR (Rusia) waepons because they are cheaper, easier to maintain,Russia accepts Indian Rupee. They let India assembled plane in India. A matter of pride. Never a danger of sanctions. US high tech weapons performs well on computer screen but they are cumbersome to maitain. Remeber US sanctions days on India. Every US senator was acting like US president authority. Ghost of US secretary of State late John Foster Dulles appears.
From personal experience, ageing russian aircraft are a nightmare to maintain, due to minimal support from the Russians. Their failure and crash rates are testimony to that. To be honest I cannot faily compare the two since I don't have any experience with American miltary equipment.
Fareed – I am somewhat bemused by your argument here "First of all, the idea that India’s foreign policy elite are able to think in a strategic and wise way on behalf of the country is highly questionable. These are the people who allied India steadfastly with the Soviet Union and Communist China up until the point that Chairman Mao decided to invade India."
Didn't the US provide arms and ammunition to the very same people they are now fighting in Afghanistan? By applying your argument, shouldn't it be the case that America's foreign policy is just as messed up and unreliable? Or have you forgotten the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have had or the belief that he was working with Al-Qaeda?
You're probably right in saying that India needs the US more than the other way around, but I don't think its by a lot. True, we'll suffer if the US withdraws from Afghanistan without a proper support structure in place, but that's partly why India has now spent $2 billion to help that country build its economy and infrastructure (and not its armed forces). As other posters have already said, the US can ill-afford to ignore India like it did in the 70s,80s and even the 90s simply because India was a closed economy at that time and now has a lot of growth potential. And not to mention a functioning democracy despite the corruption scandals and all its other faults.
Finally, IF the Indian government had stepped in to play real-politik and had over ruled the military establishment and forced them to pick one of the US fighter jets, I think it would have played right into the hands of the opposition who would have called this a sell-out to the US and could ultimately have brought down the ruling party.
I like Mr. Zakaria, but I think he's wrong on this one. He's making the argument that India is foolish to risk American goodwill by not buying these warplanes. However, America is not a particularly loyal friend: after a century of close ties, alliances, and blood shed alongside one another on the battlefields of Europe in WW1 and WW2, Americans spat all over Canada the moment Canada declined to join the coalition to invade Iraq. Overnight, Canadian businesses faced boycotts, Canadian consumers discovered that many American businesses would no longer accept their money, Canadian travellers were treated as potential terrorists, etc.
So tell me, what exactly is the benefit of building up goodwill with America? You've shown in the past that you will throw away decades of goodwill at a moment's notice, so it doesn't seem like it has a particularly high value.
And don't forget about the French being spat at when they refused to be a part of American military adventurism in Iraq to find and dismantle the imaginary WMDs that Saddam possessed. Overnight, delicious french fries became "freedom fries" on the Capitol Hill. That's the price you pay for not supporting the US - whether you are right or not.
Planes or not – US and India need each other badly.
What in the world Fareed!!!
I totally agree with Rahul's comment. My two cents.
1) I would also like to point out that the elimination was more on the technical front than geo political consideration. There are lots of technical evaluation aspects in which F18, F16 and others which didn't make downselect. IAF did a great job in laying out a process and yardstick for all the aircrafts and rated them accordingly. They were not bothered by any geo political aspect, its purely technical evaluation. Why should IAF buy an aircraft which failed technically on certain parameters but may have greater geo political advantage. That doesn't make sense. Fareed should have done that part of research and seen on what grounds these a/c were not selected.
2) Not considering above, Keeping in mind the threat perception, F16 was already out from begining as PAF operates it too. F18 has been and aging platform which is not seeing any more significant orders or upgrades from USN itself. So I would say US should have done a better job in providing a better platform for competition. Mig35 was a variant of Mig29k which IAF already flies. Eurofighter and Rafale are any day better platform in terms of multi role air superiority and the evaluation also brought out the same.
3) On military hardware recently acquired from US including C130J we are running into contractual issue including CISMO which is a bone of contention. What is the guarantee that during need of hour US will fall behind and us instead of pulling the plug? As I understood there are past precedence where this has happened thereby limiting our response. Take an example of SAAB Gripen, It was supposed to fly with US AESA radar but US blocked it knowing Gripen is also in competition, that's not a fair play.
4) I would say IAF showed maturity and professionalism to rate aircraft even if that meant selecting the most expensive platforms of all 5.
5) I think Fareed's comments are politically motivated. He is looking from the angle that it would have brought more jobs. Even if $10 billion doesn't make a dent in $15Trillion economy, jobs do. By purchasing C17 itself its supposedly created 30k jobs (Obama himself admitted). Jobs may matter and not $ figures. I am sure purchasing these many a/c along with future support would have created and sustained jobs for platforms which may be looking for retirement in future.
Net, IAF is trying to get what it considers the best out in the market and not dogged by political nature of deals. I totally agree with them for doing the right thing.
Rahul S
There are many who say USA is not a loayal friend. Can you tell me who is – China? Russia? Anybody?
Where are the majority of you guys blogging from? that should answer " who needs who"
Fareed,
I hold your views in high regard, normally, but you got this one all wrong.
I do agree that the future will see India and the US align militarily and strategically, but it has to be for the right reasons.
Both India and the US believe in democracy, freedom and share core values which make them natural allies against the communist-terrorist nexus of China and Pakistan.
india has not forgotten the role played by the seventh fleet in the Indian ocean in 1971. Lahore would have been a big enough asset to exchange for Gilgit Baltistan and may have altered the course of history in the subcontinent.
India got a better aircraft in the Eurojet, with no preconditions on their use as required by the US. While Indian politicians need to wake up take cognisance of the changes in the geopolitical power balance due to the rise of China, the US also needs to accept that it doesn't enjoy the economic, technological or political hegemony it did only 2 decades ago. It should not presume to be able to dictate terms in an arms deal of that size any more.
I do, like you, lament the lost opportunity.
Hmmm...like I said before, India cannot be trusted. It is time we realize that India is only using us against Pakistan.
Master race is a Low Lying Insect race called The PAKI from (Pakistan)
Apparently, Kabir thinks very highly of himself and his race.
All this won't matter when the end of days come. Large amounts of ice has receded from the poles and they are planning to start mining operations there. US, India, China, blah blah won't matter when Tsunamis hit the earth. So my suggestion is stop producing arms, start producing clean energy.
To add to Rahul's comment above, US government requires such deals to go through congressional review every year just like the Nuclear Deal with India. This is unnecessary headache for India as the US congress can always impose sanctions or cut off support for any reason. Fareed eagerly looking forward to your response to the comments posted. Hope you don't chicken out..
After India’s independence from Great Britain in 1947, U.S. should have extended its hand towards India, despite of its non-aligned stand, as it was the largest democracy in the world.
India is the country where hinduism and buddhism originated. Perhaps if India's leaders spent a little time each day in meditation, they could make better decisions? Leaders in the U.S. most likely don't meditate. They are justified in screwing up the country's budget, debt, and domestic and foreign policies. As an American, I am saddened that our leaders aren't bright when it comes to managing the national budget, among other things. It is so embarrassing that the capitalist leader of the world is a debtor nation. I have found over the years that meditating on a regular basis improves my thinking. Perhaps if more of our leaders learned to meditate, the U.S. could turn itself around for the better.
No meditation can help the US leaders or the Corporate leaders, garbage in- garbage out. What is needed is capital punishment for wrong doing. More importantly removal of the US dollar as the reserve currency. By printing money the US became the largest economy, they basically cheated the rest of the world. Where do you think the bail out money came from, it was just printed and used to buy toxic assets, which is next black hole. What we need to learn to be a better country and a better people is a "humbling experience. " The arrogance of wealth is at the root of American Behavior. But the wealth is all fluff ! America has been a failure as a world leader, primarily because of "self indulgence" of its people, which is driven by consumer goods and stupid mass media spots, where a bunch of bloated hormone loaded morons run around with a stupid looking ball !.
You hit the nail on the head. Well said.
I guess the most important point at this stage when every corner of the world is on fire is PEACE. Just a 10Billion dollars! I don't think 10Billion makes huge difference for the country like USA, but with this articles it sounds like it does. Mr. Zakaria, this article made me to consider US as a short thinker. Also, being on winning side or loosing side can't decide the credibility of any nation. India's one decision made you to write this article(Which is your JOB), but now please explain who is in need of who?
DONT THINK INDIA NEEDS USA BUT DEFINITELY USA NEEDS INDIA WITH THAT IS GOING ON WITH AF-PAK REGION. WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN USA BACKED OSAMA TO DRIVE OUT THE RUSSIAN FROM AFGHANISTAN, IT CAME AND BIT US BADLY.
SO I CONCLUDE USA NEEDS INDIA MORE THAN ANY ONE ELSE IN THAT REGION
I second what you are saying, trying to win India by throwing cndies /bait to India to win their goodwill.
If US economy is 15 trillion with equal amount of deficit and dont care of India buys and from whom. Why you care Fareed. Isn't it clear that US fighter plains failed to meet requirements of Indian Airforce. The judgement was based on quality and it was right decision. With changing times it seems like china owns America. Now on whose side the ailing superpower is?
India is the biggest arms buyer in the world. Obama is kissing their a## so they can buy our warplanes. India and USA are using each other for time being to ward off China but it is not gonna work. China is going to be next super power.
Getting contracts from India boils down to who pays more bribe to corrupt officials. Were they thinking strategically, may be may be not. But were they offered enough bribe by American business, probably not. It is unfortunate and sad but that is how it is. All of you people may point out various strategic reasons for this but they are incomplete without taking bribe amounts into picture. I'm not blaming Congress. All parties are the same. BJP could not order soldier coffins without taking bribes, let alone everything else.
While we are posting our useless comments here, Indian farmers crushed under debts are committing suicide at staggering rate.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/11/every_30_minutes_crushed_by_debt
The U.S sends Pakistan $3.5 billion in military aid a year. that cant make India happy. I dont blame them. Theyre basically going to turn around and hand Pakistan that money. At the same time you are underestimating the alliance between the U.S and India. Both face the same threats from the same people. Both also have concerns about China. both believe in the same principles of government. A $10 billion arms deal gone bad isnt going to ruin the relationship
India can never be USA's trusted friend. All it does is take away our jobs.
Really Buddy go check the stats how many jobs get created in US due to India. All consumer groups sell their stuff in India. The day that stops happening you will be loosing a million jobs here in a jiffy. Trade is both ways always remember that. The current economic pain is global and is Made in USA. If you have to gripe against something then gripe against Wall street who just looks to make a quick buck. Because of which companies are left with no solution but to layoff. The system of Quaterly reports is going to plunge the country and very little will happen in good research since research takes money and does not produce immediate economic results. That is the reason US is falling back of new developments and cutting edge technology development.
Bottomline if you want to blame anything Blame Wall Streets and its requirement of Quatrely reports
I don't know whether you are a real American or are just a fake. Anyways, jobs have been lost because of Wall Street not because of India. Indian economy is right now working as a great support for US economy to come up. Either get your facts right or go yell in front of a mirror.
So Fareed, I guess you screwed up analysis on a very sensitive topic. However, as much as I could read from the comments a felt people are stating the obvious that in this trade game India had an open leeway and did not have to consider US as a political payoff. (Other deals already done for that purpose)
The more I think about it I feel that the "Indian Strategic Thinkers" actually made a very good political calculation when the Americans were dead sure of the play. This will make US fight harder and more honestly for the next big budget sale.
Other than that This also makes Indian MIGHT be known to the West. When India wants something then it is better to give exactly what is being asked and not hide behind National politics.
Point: India trades on Indian terms not on US Congress terms or any other nations congress terms.
It is time America open it eyes. India should never be trusted. They are just taking advantage of us. While we Americans are looking for jobs, India people are outsourcing to India. Now when America needs India to buy these warplanes, India just dumps us.
u r definitely a 50 cent.
Mr Zakaria,
Did not see this opinion coming from you. You are suggesting India's next generation fighter jet should be America's last generation fighter jet. Some of which are also present in Pakistani airforce. What happens when some American defence contractor leaks the frequencies used by Indian jets due to his long friendship with the Pakistanis? You are looking at a $10 Billion worth of sitting ducks.
It is America's allies (Germany, France UK etc) who developed a completely new fighter to rival America's fighter. you are taking Indians to task for just buying one? Maybe you should be more critical of them as well for not buying US planes in the first place and for not having the strategic foresight to partner with America after what America did for them.
I agree there should be give and take between US & India but surely not on this issue. Your opinion gave the impression that you were trying to please your State Dept. neighbor rather than objectively look at the issue.
Fareed, your views on this matter are biased and, frankly, lacks thorough analysis of India's decison making process. Here are four reasons why:
(1) Americans offered older aircrafts (F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet) as opposed to the newer F-22 fighter jets. Why would anyone opt for an obsolete fleet over newer, superior fighter jets from Europeans (France's Dassault, e.g.)
(2) America has been and is still allied with Pakistan. India ought not to reward its enemy's friend.
(3) US-India relationship is a strategic one; however, mainly when it comes to matters of technology, terrorism, democracy, and such. India does and should continue to value its decades-old friendship with Russia and other European allies. Frankly, Americans have history of "strategic friendship" as long as their interests are at stakes.
(4) India's fighter pilots have trained and fought with USSR/Europeans jets (such as MiG and Mirage) for many years. Introducing American jets would cause change of course from fighter training program, strategic mission execution, and overall program air-force strategy.
I wish you had analyzed the other side of your argument as you often do on GPS each Sunday. I will continue to watch your program and thanks for a good article.
This is one of the very rear movements where Indian politicians and decision makers had a courage in rejecting American fighter planes. Perfect decision
1. USA has always supported Pakistan and USA goes around the world spreading democracy and has constantly ignored and worked against the world largest democracy.
2. USA has send its 7th Fleet to support Pakistan against India
3. USA had provided Patton Tanks to Pakistan against India
4. USA had given Saber jets to Pakistan against India
5. USA has not granted deportation or assess to David Hardley
6. During recent visit of President Obama’s Richard Gates Obamas’ press secretary was rude to Indian security and threatened to pull Obama out of the meeting with the Prime Minister.
7. President Kalam was made to remove his shoes while boarding Continental flight to USA fro India ( against diplomatic norms and Protocols)
8. Wipro Chairman was denied entry to USA by Immigration officials at New Jersey Airport
9. Sharukh Khan detained by immigration because his baggage didn’t arrived in the same flight as him
10. USA has not ordered for itself F16, and F 18 as they themselves say it is old outdate technology
11. USA has not supported India against Kashmir
12. USA has opposed AWACS and had put several road blocks for 8-9 years so that India doesn’t get AWACS
13. for Transport aircraft India has purchased C130’s
14 USA was not ready for transfer of Technology of there outdated aircrafts and was not ready for HAL to manufacture F18, F16 in India; later on SU30 is being Produce in HAL Bangalore
15 USA opposed India in developing Tajas
16 USA opposed in Cryogenic Engine development Later India developed ( Cavary engine on its own)
17 will USA develop a Stelth fighter wit India answer is NO; Russia is see the Joint development of Stealth fighter
Mr. Zakaria do you need any more reason why India should not trust USA, next time please tell Obama he listens to you.
@Tina You Go Girl !
"India could gain a very powerful ally in America who also has enormous influence over Pakistan."
Fareed
Well we have see how much US has influence trying to catch Osama bin laden and associates, Dawood ibrahim, and all the terrorists hiding in pakistan supposed to be hand over to India long long long back.
Just by writing an article don't question India's strategist, they dealt with guys like over several years.
I really agree with Rahul and others over their analysis
I happen to know one of the very high up folks in india that used to help indian defence ministry make big buying decisions. This person used to be a very very smart guy. He told me that he would come to US and have US counterparts visit his team in India to do deals. He heard it all many times. However at the end of the day most of the arms India would buy from US could not be reproduced in India, not even the spare parts due to patents etc. And it was all subject to being shutdown at a moments notice upon sanctions. Russia on the other hand would transfer the technology so you could pretty much build your own parts and the actual tank/plane yourself. And never being subjected to sanctions. Many folks in India do not feel US is a true ally based on its several decade long support for the Pakistani's. I think US needs to work on this relationship with India before Indian's can truely trust their security in their hands. On one hand China gets all the business dollars from US, on the other Pakistan gets all the Security Dollars....
They're looking to UPGRADE. The F-18 is NOT an upgrade. The plane was/is a redesign of the XF-17 which is a 1970s design concurrent with the F-16. Put that up against 2 gen 4 fighters and the question becomes --What the He!! were we thinking?
They are outdated, but that doesn't matter as India can't make themselves any. But strategically India needs someone who is willing to supply spares and weapons in the time of need. Forget about weapons, last time India had sent it's indigenously developed engines to US for testing and US refused to return them back and slammed a sanction. So just imagine what US will do with it's own spares in case of a war? Also US has sold F-16s to Pakistan, so India will be in a strategically disadvantageous position if it buys similar planes. India is already using MIrrages and France has been pretty supportive in the past...so it was not a surprise at all.
I'm not sure why so many folks want to equate Pakistan's current situation to an alliance forged with the U.S..What about all of Western Europe, what about South Korea, What about Japan??.I guess all of those countries are doing just fine. Pakistan has been a fractured democracy since it's formation, or at least after Jinnah. Jinnah was Pakistan's first and only liberal head of state. Looks like the rest of them turned to radical Islamization just to differentiate themselves from India. Hence too many military generals in power. India and Pakistan have everything in common in terms of culture but none in terms of Politics. Both are humongous democracies for the U.S or the erstwhile Soviet to have played a significant role in policy making in their formative years. The current situation has just been bad judgment calls on the parts of our so called policy makers.
With respect to India the specific problem, is India's free speech policy. It is taken too far, the reason we still entertain terrorists and naxalites without targeting them with an all out military offensive. The same goes for the role the that the communist party plays in India's political spectrum. A sad and sorry pro-China role in Modern India. We should align ourselves with nations that share our ideology and principles, like democracy and secularism. Considering the U.S is still one of the largest power brokers in the world with vested interests in our region , we should support them and try to forge stronger ties with them.
With all the European Nations collapsing due to their fragile economies. The chances are, some of them like Greece,etc might end up losing their E.U membership just in a dash effort to save the E.U and the Euro. In that scenario we would have established a strong tie with a weak Economic Sector.
Moreover stronger military ties with U.S also ensures NATO on our side, but I'm not sure if the converse holds.
Brilliant Analysis!!! Bharath!!! There is a lot of foresight in your though-process!!! I am amazed what kind of think tank one single article can produce!!! I hope a similar collective intelligence and thought process exists in all the advisors who advise the political bigwigs in India....It is very sad to see what is happening in the world today....there are massive pieces of broken links especially in Middle East, Vast parts of Africa & many more places which is a cause for serious concern for the rest of the world...it is very sad to see thousands and thousands of people getting killed almost every day in the name of revolution, Uprisings, Political equations, Revenge etc. I wonder what is the loss of life do we see now on a daily basis compared to whatever would have happened in the WW1 and WW2?
I hope the world does not make the prediction of the end of World in 2012 TRUE!!!! I am almost seeing many signs of a WW III if not end of the world......or is this a new renaissance brewing up at the dawn of the 21st century.....while the baby boomer generations and the 80s/90s was filled with Industrialization and somewhat stable but hippy and happier economies, the advent of globalization is bringing in more pain then joy to the world!!! It almost feels that the conundrum of globalization was actually created by a few greedy capitalists and industrialists for their personal gains or for short-term gains in the name of open markets and global economies.....or it could very well be that this is an Economic Renaissance of the world (only if we have learnt our lessons from it and implemented appropriate reforms for the better)....
Do we really need another Messaiah rising to bring peace and happiness to the world? With all the collective Wisdom from our History, can we not change our ways? Is Religion really relevant in today's context? Can people really get killed and kill others just in the shallow name of religion? What happened to the promise of the Moden and Free Society? Is it going to ever elude us?
Always remember one thing, we are part of our society and our society is built by taking a part of us – if you look at it with a bigger picture and compare it, the world is filled with our own brother and sisters – a loss of life anywhere, any region causes immense pain to all of us.....we should definitely discard these shallow differences and vested thinking now...and work towards a green n clean world & world peace!!!!
Amen
Zakaria, you have not done your research, or you are being paid to lobby/ spread propaganda. It's time America should started respecting other nations on which it actually depends. The deal did not include the best fighters, and would you buy your arms from your enemy's friend(read funding manager)? I saw your other articles have sound logic, but this one is by far your worst analysis. I hope you give up your OCI card, if you have it, we don't need potential lobbyists like you spreading very biased analysis on important national security issues.
Mr. Zakaria, I always read your articles in TIME magazine and until now considered you to be someone who is straight forward, someone who calls a spade a spade. But this article of yours has struck a painful chord. By supporting USSR, I do not think India was supporting USSR's occupation of Afghanistan or Cambodia. I do not recall hearing anything that would amount to India supporting USSR in these causes. I agree with some of the people who have commented on your article – India has given a lot of business to USA in private as well as defense sector. Why are you crying like a baby who was denied a lollipop? Grow up. You win some, you lose some. You mean to say that you are smarter and better than India's thinktanks and strategy makers. May be you should run for President of USA or may be take Hillary's place. If India supported USSR on Afghan/Combodia and USA was against it, I would say USSR did the right thing by backing out. USSR falling apart is another story but Russia is still a stable country politically and I think economically as well and so is India. And we all know what state of affairs Pakistan and Afghanistan are. India may need USA but I think in present economic conditions, USA also needs growing economies like India. Why do you think most major corporations in USA are having business interests in India? It is because it is profitable for them. Yes USA is a $15 trillion ecomomy but last I heard there is a $14 trillion debt on USA as well, China holds most of the bonds, social security may not be available to people in another 20-30 years, medical benefit system is useless etc. etc. etc.
Zakaria (Hmmmm), all I have to say is yawnnnn. Reminds me of the bubble boy in Sinfield who stays in his bubble world of great America.
And another point, if USA wants to sell defense equipment to India, it should stop giving freebies to Pakistan. You cannot have your cake and eat it too! India will not finance USA to arm it's enemy. We can defend ourselves, we have some of the best engineers in India (and to remind you we have USA made Patton tanks on display in various parts of India. We captured those tanks from Pakistan)
My query is why the US did not offer the F-22 fighter which is more advanced than the decade old F-18/F-16 jets. The British were willing to give the best technology and transfer of technology to. So I think it is purely a decision based on merits/technology. We wish the US the best and hopefully there will be more opportunities for trade. Remember India gave a $10 billion order to Boeing instead of Airbus. At that time The European complained of unfairness. It all business and everybody wants the best deal and more profit.
The F-22 would be off the table because of the Technology transfer we were not willing to make.
America Sells Planes to India...and gives rockets to Pakistan. Check and mate. The US creates a war, at a discounted price and is able to keep Fareed Zakaria on CNN to broadcast.
Well I guess the answer is simple, India didn't get a good deal. Most of the stuff that US sells to other countries is incompetent/substandard/outdated as compared to the stuff that US itself uses for Combat. India itself is into manufacturing combat fighter planes and I'm sure the US wasnt willing to share the technology. Indians love to tailor make their weapons. Anyways India gets better deals from the Russians and if you combine Russian technology with Indian technology, the outcome is far better than US technology. Sukhoi Su-30 MKI is a perfect example. Besides this US is also selling/donating the same stuff to Pakistan, so it is in India's interest to not buy the same stuff. Bottom line: India believes in open source
Disclaimer: I am an American with commercial interests in India.
Geopolitical relationships are governed by strategic realities. Frankly, America's coddling of (and funding0 Pakistan has nothing to do with the Pakistan-India rivalry. It's all about keeping Afghanistan under some sort of control as a launching pad for terrorism, and keeping Pakistani nukes out of Islamic extremist hands. Don't think for a minute that the Pentagon doesn't have a contingency plan to wipe Pakistani nuclear facilities of the face of the map, and don't think the Paks don't know it. That's a big reason why the relationship is so weird.
Over the long run, I suspect the relationship between the USA and India will strengthen as a natural consequence of the rise of China. But it will never be about democracy, or the past. It will be purely and simply about strategic imperatives of national survival.
well said...I think the Indians are beginning to realize this and therefore beginning to consider their own national interests rather than blindly aligning with any nation.
Having said that, I do sincerely believe that there is convergence of interests between USA & India, which is laying a strong foundation for bilateral relationships between the 2 nations. That does not mean that we will agree with each other always and "agreeing to disagree" will lead to maturing of the relationship.
No point being highly emotional...
reality not ideology – " remember that the USA is funding a significant chunk of India's development now and has been for several decades through outsourcing jobs to India and allowing all of India's well-educated to come to the USA for jobs and further education"
Stop the BS. You should not overlook the contributions of skilled professionals from India and elsewhere in developing industries and jobs in the U.S. You are not giving visas to someone without any education and professional skills and stop thinking that charity is the policy behind visa issuance. Don't take this as comparison, but those skilled people work hard and pay taxes during their stay in the U.S. Furthermore, we sell our products such as weapons (having only undesirable consequences), soft drinks (killing the local products) etc. in foreign markets in the name of globalization and free markets and if others follow the same and sell their services in the U.S., you have all the problems it seems. BTW, study the statistics regarding how many U.S. citizens are working abroad, particularly in China and India, you will surprised at those figures. India with its over a billion population is still sufficient resources to feed its people and not at the mercy of some other nation. Open your eyes and think objectively.
This is a typical attitude of Indian who have become US citizens. They want India to become a US lackey, following in its footsteps like an obedient servant. Buy outdated and overpriced equipment just to please the US. India does not need to enter into a bad deal just to get some brownie points from the US. Na ga da.
One of the most badly written, biased and preposterous report. Shame such people even find employment at CNN.
The primary reason India is buying European planes and not ours is simple. We been supporting Pakistan for years and we all know what India thinks of Pakistan. India also knows that the United States needs India more than the other way around.
India is located next to the belly of China. Indians are not stupid, they are not going to lose our friendship and are buttering up Europe, win, win decision..
I actually have great respect for Mr. Zakaria..but I am not sure where he is going with this...on one hand he says the loss of $10 billion deal is not a dig deal for the US..and at the same time he implies that the US will feel aggrieved that India did not buy their planes..that does not seem to have stopped a $4 billion deal for 10 C-17 transport aircraft from going into the final stages.
Then he loses me completely by tying this to some strategic geo-political big picture blunder by India choosing the wrong side in the Cold War. India was not on any side and was one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement. As per historical facts, during the 1971 Indo-Pak war, when Mr Zakaria was a kid in Mumbai, the US sent a nuclear submarine in the Bay of Bengal to threaten India, and unconditionally supported Pakistan, notwithstanding the genocide in Bangladesh, and this was what caused the strategic Indian shift toward the Soviet Union.
Finally, he says India’s immediate security is entirely dependent on maintaining a stable relationship with Pakistan. India would like nothing more than to have a stable relationship with a stable Pakistan, but India's immediate security has been under far more threat in the past than it stands today, with Pakistan having become the basketcase that is unable to control the snakes that it bred for so long. Unless of course, he is talking about their nuclear weapons, in which case I would think they pose a threat to the whole world, not least to the US.
Although it does not happen very often, I strongly disagree with what Fareed says in the article here. For years Indian defense policy has revolved around self-reliance and non-dependence on foreign superpowers. Even when they got most of their weapons from the Soviets, they always insisted on transfer of technology so that the weapons can be locally maintained and upgraded as need be. It is this policy that has helped it survive the cold war, collapse of USSR and the extremely erratic and 'self-centered' US policy.
All other nations that have overtly depended on US 'donations', 'friendship' and weapon's deals have suffered immensely in the long run due to the pretty erratic nature of their foreign policy which take a big turn every decade – take for example Iran, Pakistan, Egypt etc. In fact Pakistan had to wait for over a decade before the F16's that they had already paid for, were delivered to them (partially)!
If India were to buy weapons from US, there is no question that they would not have got the required technology transfer, and long term support that is so critical of the Indian defense policy. Not to say how long the delivery of these weapons would have been delayed if there is yet another shift in US policy.
much to do about nothing – except for the merchants of death planes
Well Said Dave!!! That is the Bottom Line!!!
Mr. Zakaria, you seemed to have lost objectivity. India was an ally of the former USSR because of the US's approach towards India. Everybody knows, how Indian political and national leaders were insulted, called names and ridiculed by U.S. leaders on several occasions. BTW, some Indians tell me that they are glad that India did not side with the US during cold war period, had it been, US would have established its military bases there as well. Why do you make it a big deal, if a business deal did not go through well for the U.S.? Deal must be mutually beneficial and India might be thinking that this deal was not beneficial to them. Let India, a sovereign democratic nation, decide its friends and partners in the international community and do its business with countries of its choosing. It is widely recognized that India maintains good relations several international players, and so be it.
Why should India award a $10 billion contract to a country which provides Pakistan with $4 billion in military aid, in spite of the fact that Pakistan harbors and trains Islamic terrorists of all hues and colors. USA, it is time you pick the right friends in a changing world.
Where do you get your facts and figures from? $4 billion of military aid to Pakistan per year... seriously?
well india has a history for not aligning with one country. India has maintained it's relations with Israel, Iran, Saudi, Libya and Valenzuela. Doesn't matter USA like it or not .I think it is good foreign policy.
cnn always tries to divide people and create hatred
both india and u.s might have forgotten about this deal , but fareed zakaria is writing BS with no research on his side
all it does is create hatred
Seriously, this is nonsense. Just another article by an Indian immigrant who think he knows, he understands. The reason this deal did not go through was because US did not put F-22 on the negotiating table. Pakistan owns F-16s, they just get them as a "Strategic" partner, why should India settle for something similar when they are willing to spend $10bn? Also, in the recent past US-India relationship has improved. Indian leaders are taking the forward step by working hard for the nuclear deal. Think about it, US now thinks India is "responsible" nuclear "partner"! Do you mean US simply approached India and made it a partner? NO! India had to take the steps to ensure a friendly relationship with US.
India forever has and should always follow its own principle. It does not matter what others say, but, we do not like to interfere in the personal matters of other countries. US did not like that during cold war, wanted a base in Asia and hence approached Pakistan. We did not choose Russia. How is this a mistake on India's part? Now, Listen- we are done being slaves, I believe you ran out of India long time back. So you need to understand that the ego is bigger now. We are a peaceful nation, we don't bother others, so don't tell us what to do. This decision was India's to take and they took it. We would love to be an US ally, but it won't be a case of- "hey Tommy, could you please please be my friend... I will play the game you like and let you have all my toys". Thats just disgusting.
Wow Mr. Zakaria!!! I say you are not thinking at all.. How can you say that this deal is the basis for a stronger relationship between both the countries? It is just a business deal. And relationships are not made or maintained just with plain business deals.
On one hand you say US doesn't care about this 10 billion $ worth a deal and on the other you are saying (or should I say crying??) that India made a mistake by not buying from the US. I find this too childish.
And by the way, if you have noticed or not, India is not buying the required planes from Russia either.
People like you must think more than once before writing something like this.
Mr.Zakaria is just frustrated...If anyone in general says that Indians don't think...All I can do is give an Indian head shake in reply..
@Fareed, You are mixing 2 totally different things !
Deal to buy or not buy planes is 'Technical'. Friendship and alliance at country level is 'Political'.
It is not that America do not have technological advance planes but the class of Planes offered by USA were not up to Expectation and So these planes ended up getting disqualified.... Please read @Rahul to understand all technical considerations.
You talk of rising China as a concern for India, then you must note: America came for bidding in order to get Business and not to support India's political standpoint. America never stood-by India for any political reason, Even then, India has always considered America friendly nation.
'India need America' is just one side of story. 'America also need India' is also a fact. If you disagree, then wait till China+Pakistan combo make you realize this.
Mr. Zakaria, how does it feel to have put your own foot in your mouth?
Well said!!!
As well as I know Indians in business....I know this, they are all (yes ALL) without a doubt unethical horse traders. I have never met an Indian in business that i could consider honest or ethical.....I would imagine this holds true for the indian government. Indians by and large are shortsighted at best, and myopic at worst, they will brag about saving a dollar, even when it costs them $1,000.00 dollars in the not to distant future.
As far as those of you that say, America "Needs" India.....guess what, we dont. We could deal just fine with China and Vietnam and never lose sleep over not kowtowing to Indian back and forth over defense contracts....it will come to this...I am sure of it. Americans will just stop doing business there altogether.
The sooner we realize US does not need "friends" in those parts of the world the better.
In those areas friendship is (and always was) taken for weakness. Nice firm show of force makes them very friendly. I've seen it. With my own eyes
Oh yeah? Do you have any stories to tell?
Blitzer, you must be either a small-time CIA intern or a 50 cent chinese commenter!!!
Strategic thoughts within India may be that if both India and US are to target China, then combination of US and European military combination will help penetrate easily, instead of using only US equipments. As US manipulates its partners to meet its own interest than mutual benefit, partnership with USSR with mutual benefit was natural choice and India being not too dependent on any nation, able to keep a good relation with both USSR and also with US too
Friends disagree. We are confusing acquiescence with friendship – hence our alliances with the wrong kind of duplicitous people.
I am looking forward to Fareed addressing rahul's post either on his show or in the comments here.
My 2 cents ... In the post 9/11 world India and US have emerged as natural allies. The political, ecomonic and humanitarian situation in Asia has driven both of them to strenghten this alliance. As much as $10 billion does not make a dent in the US economy, it would be a very narrow minded view to say that the whole Indo-US relationship hinges on just one deal. Especially a deal in which there was a "not for sale" clause from US. There have been and there will be other opprortunities of defense and nuclear deals that cannot be disregarded.
Dependance of any country on another for all of its defense needs undermines its soverignity and provides unprecedented leverage to the other. No geo-political unbiased commentrator can suggest such an approach/advise for any nation. The US is providing multi-billion dollar aid to Pakistan and also making or expecting to make multi-billion dollar deals with India. It doesnot take a genuius to understand how the aid will be funded.
Wow .. the comments make more sense than the article!
While I do not find it useful to go down memory lane and air old grievances, Fareed brings up India's past with the Soviet Union to illustrate the lack of strategic decision making on the part of Indian leaders. However, his analysis is completely one-sided in that it assumes the U.S.-India relationship was defined entirely by actions taken by India, with the United States as a passive player. This is simply not true.
India was non-aligned in the initial days of the Cold War, but began leaning towards the Soviets towards the late 50's onwards. This was not because India's leaders thought the Soviet Union would come out on top and decided to throw in their lot with them. It started when India sought to reclaim Goa from the colonial Portuguese, who refused to evacuate the territory. India exercised its right as a sovereign nation to reclaim its own territory from a foreign power that refused to leave, yet the United States instead backed Portugal at the United Nations and even condemned India's use of force to reclaim the territory, while the Soviets backed India. India's leaders needed to make decisions that were best for India, and I fail to see how moving towards the country that supported their legitimate territorial was bad strategic decision making.
Similarly, the Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, much maligned in the West (and by Fareed) and often cited as a reason for the United States supporting Pakistan, was not a strategic decision by India's leaders to support the Soviet Union because they thought they would win the Cold War. It was signed in response to the United States lack of support towards India during the Bangladesh war for independence. The genocide perpetuated by West Pakistan in East Pakistan (Bangladesh) was sending thousands upon thousands of refugees pouring across the border into India, which India could ill afford. India could not simply stand around and continue to absorb so many refugees, and there was also the moral matter of a genocide against Hindus being conducted on their doorstep. India wanted to take aggressive action against West Pakistan to end the war and halt the genocide/refugee crisis, yet the United States decided to support genocidal West Pakistan and even tried to entice China to attack India from the rear should they go to war with West Pakistan (Mao instead joined the international chorus for a ceasefire). Indhira Gandhi was in a desperate situation, and since she could not find any kind of diplomatic or military support from the West, she sought it from the Soviet Union. It was a deal with the devil, but it allowed India to deal with West Pakistan, stop the genocide and halt the flow of refugees. Again, India's leaders needed to make strategic decisions that are best for India (not the United States), and I challenge anyone to argue that fighting West Pakistan and ending the genocide was not in India's strategic interest, whether it came with Soviet strings attached or not.
While the United States did go to bat for India regarding the nuclear deal, India has also bent over backwards to accommodate the United States. Both the December 2001 attack on India's parliament and the 2008 Mumbai massacre created enormous domestic pressure in India to go after Pakistan, and yet both times India showed incredible restraint at the behest of the United States so that they would not jeopardize the war on terror in Afghanistan. I could also point to India showing great patience with the U.S.-Pakistan relationship despite its adverse affects on India (Pakistan using American military aid to build up their forces to fight India, not the Taliban, Pakistani complicity in the attack on India's consulate in Afghanistan, etc. etc.).
India and the United States are moving closer and closer together, so I don't think talking about these past grievances is productive, but I think it is wholly unfair to cast India's recent decision making (and during the Cold War) as betting against the United States and therefore being strategically incompetent.
Indian gals are sexy vixens. Just look at that Top Chef host. Me want some more!
Generally, I think Fareed is to the point in his analysis on politics , economy . But on this I am not sure why it seems the opinion seemed to be little skewed . I am not a big fan of Indian government or politicians , but it looks like they have made a better decision on this matter. India should never make the same mistake as they did during cold war , putting all your eggs in one basket .As we know , India signed multibillion contracts, relating to Nuclear energy with US companies , the type of power plants that US has not commissioned in decades as it is not economical or whatever.
On one side you think this is a “left wing ideology “ but not sure what are your thoughts of protectionist Obama policies when it comes to IT trade. If Indian trade is so insignificant why he is projecting it to be the best US job saving policy. They want developing markets to be open for them but not the reverse.
It is very difficult to believe stability in Afaganistan or any of the countries ( like Vieatnam , Korea , Iraq , Kuwait , Pakistan , Yemen , many African countries ) is US priority. While US supported Taliban , Laden against Soviets , India supported Ahamad shah Masood . Even now what we are debating is selling weapons.. and the scary thing is US is trying to sell weapons to both the parties which they think are hostile with each other.
In this world with diverse cultures and economies , no one should be arrogant to say my way is the best way ( not even US ..) . And if rest of the 6.5 Bn people start to have a American lifestyle of uncontrolled usage , we can just imagine what will happen to the globe..
Fareed: It would be nice to hear your comments.
Thanks
seriously? you are kidding? I hope...
Today, India's economy is booming. They have been able to turn the country around in just short 63 years. Just Look what is going on with the countries who aligned themselves with America? Pakistan aligned itself with America and look where they are today. Barely surviving on American handouts. About a year ago, Pakistani president on CNN was Begging for more money from the united states. He was complaining how little his country is getting compare to other countries. Where is the dignity in that? Look what they are reduced to... Holding a cup and asking for money....
You will never see indian government or its representatives begging.
The government of india, the leaders, and the people of india made right strategic choices to get the country to where they are today. In your opinion, Indian government has been making stupid decision. Explain me "Pakistan". They made right moves and aligned with right partner in the cold war. Right? Why are they in trouble and feel alienated and exploited with that very strategic partner?
USA needs India and India Needs USA. We are not living in the same cold war era. World is different place. Indian leaders have made decision to not compromise their ability to make independent decisions for their country. They are unveiling to sellout their dignity.
Indian people decided long ago... never to wake in anyone's shadow...
If they fail, if they succeed at least they'll live as I believe
No matter what other take from them, they can't take away their dignity
One can only appreciate that...
What Zak failed to mention is that India has signed a 9+ Billion dollar defense purchase with US excluding this. The strategic point is to diversify your purchases than giving everything to one country. Since US has got a huge contract I dont see why they should be aggrieved.
Dont blame india for buying BMW/Mercedez instead of Cadillac/Corvette.
Fareed is Wrong:
Fareed missed an important historical factor that aligned India with Russia. It was Nixon who abandoned India for Pakistan to use Pakistan's influence with China to get invited to China. Pakistan and China were in aligned in their border disputes with India, a mess left behind by the British. This was called the "Ping Pong Diplomacy." Its in the movie Forrest Gump. I read the transcripts where Nixon says he has to sacrifice India, like pups in a litter ! Nixon wanted to isolate China from Russia and place the two against each other; China had ideological differences with Russia. It was then that India aligned itself with Russia and the US's honey moon with Pakistan continues to get stale.
As for India buying planes from the EU or anything else, its simple, they know how to give hick backs to Indian politicians, an art the Americans have not mastered. Thanks
US-India: Reasons for Divergence
The US is not fundamentally inimical to India. However, its geopolitical interests with reference to Russia and China alone ensure US will continue to nurture Pakistan. Towards these interests, a relationship with a thin layer of elites belonging to a rabidly militaristic and revanchist state with a strong ideological fervor in a wide-cross section of the society is more satisfying than that with a rambunctious democracy that has a highly developed individualistic streak.
Pakistan is an important component in preventing the emergence of a dominant power in Eurasia. 911 is an insignificant consideration from the broader perspective. Therefore, no number of 911s will alter fundamentally, the US' approach in the Indian subcontinent.
Pakistan's role in international terror, the radicalization of its general population, its possession of nuclear weapons and its tendency to proliferate those guarantee that US will at times be very nervous about that country. During such times, the US policy in the subcontinent will be detrimental to Pakistan. US' geopolitical interests however ensure mean-reversion.
Pakistan's existence in the manner in which it has existed since its recent birth is also the single biggest deterrent to North-South trade – the trade between Russia, Central Asia, Iran and India – reaching its natural equilibrium. A flourishing North-South trade will be a geopolitical game-changer. Those who rule do not take kindly to others changing the games for them.
The US is already doing what it needs to do. Therefore it is silly to beseech US to take into cognizance Pakistan's perfidy, its repeated demonstration of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.
US-India: Matters of Convergence
The US does not fear nukes in the hands of established powers. It fears loose nukes. With India it is the opposite with reference to Pakistan. India is too insignificant on the chessboard to be an attractive target for loose nukes. The US is genuinely concerned about the Pakistan's relatively recent doctrine of fielding tactical nukes as these nukes will be under a command & control structure that is relatively junior and thus further removed from those in Pakistan with which US has built institutional levers of influence. It also fears proliferation by rogue elements within the Pakistani power structure ('rogue' from the perspective of the US; from India's perspective, the entire Pakistani establishment is rogue). The recent news on Pakistan having a a much largeer number of nukes than previously thought is of far greater concern to the US than it is to India. Surplus broadens the Pakistan problem, delocalizes it from the subcontinent and globalizes the concerns. Thus, on the issue of tactical nukes and on the number of nukes, the US and India's interests converge.
The US is the established leader of intellectual property (IP) and the manner in which I see India developing, I think she will grow into what has a strong knowledge-based economy component. It is the law of nature that those who own assets will strive to protect it. Working towards strengthening the international IP rights regime is again of interest to the two countries.
India is a large and growing market for military products. The US stays at the top in military technologies – no outsourcing of manufacturing to China here
. More than that, from India's
perspective, purchasing US weapon-systems allows India to diversify her operational doctrines and supply-base. Besides, the Indian fledging defense industry has reached a point where it is in a position to absorb technologies from multiple sources. The US needs large-ticket export orders. Military purchases are another area of co-operation.
The two countries have a common interest in maintaining safe access to the high seas. The US' relative economic decline, China's efforts to break out of the Yellow Sea (no, the break out is not into the Pacific) and India's expanding international trade point out to the US needing an 'outsourcing partner' in the Indian Ocean. Vietnam will likely emerge as the other 'outsourcing partner' to the West of the Malacca Strait in the next decade.
Helping ensure the continued preeminence of the US Dollar in the international financial system is in India's economic interest. Supporting an alternative will mean supporting the RMB or the Euro. Both China and the EU have far closer relationship with the US than does India. In such a multi-party game it is not in India's interest to strengthen the leverages others have with the US.
The two countries' views converge on what stability in the Persian Gulf means.
These are broad areas where I foresee a natural expansion in the US-Indian ties. MMRCA is not one of those areas. Indian planners need the ability to penetrate deep into the Pakistani air-space. The EULA, downgraded EW software and CISMOA will not permit that. Against China India needs an AWACS killer. Again, the US will not be a reliable partner here. Transport aircrafts, maritime reconnaissance aircrafts, mountain artillery, attack helicopters and even fighters for aircraft carriers are products where the US and India see eye-to-eye on operational requirements. Two cheers to these products. India must however divide the order for these products amongst multiple countries. This complicates the operational procedures but also diversifies the nature of operations that the Indian Armed Forces can offer to policy makers. From a broader perspective, it helps India to untangle herself from the game of dollar auction.
Historically for some bizzare reason America has always supported Pakistan, Even though you are argument seems logical it is in the best interest of India not to rely on US for their defence needs. After all America has given fighter planes practically free, it is best to have other vendors who can not dictate terms. By the way how about getting India a permanent seat in the UN council.
Zakaria is debased from reality. The US has tacitly supported Pakistan for more than 3 straight decades. The US turned a blind eye to Pakistan's support for Islamists in Kashmir that have murdered more than 80,000 hindus since 1989. In 1971, Pakistan exterminated another 25,000 hindus in the liberation war which was supported by the US.
Imagine if India...say, supported Mexico as Mexico launched thousands of attacks against Americans for 30 years. And then India turns around and wants to sell us weapons? LOL?
Outrage right? Zakaria is just another INO (Indian in Name Only).
Fareed Zakaria,
GOI IS DIFFERENT THEN INDIAN,fools supported folish policy.IFS are bunch of guys who prefer not to educate FP to indian,nor helped INDIAN, strategist i dont think GOI had any who can take on INDIAN
Indian should think for own interest.
strategic
US POLICY ON TECH ?(big miscaluaction indian can devlop them in INDIA (if free hand).HARD to sell to GOI (so any one thinking of high tech please try INDIA need free hand ) THINK IF GOI DO DOD OF USA.US AND INDIA CAN LEAP AGES
MUST MENTION THERE WERE MANY ISSUE LIKE LSA/CISMOA/ they tie the arm.SORRY SIR WE HAVE BOTH SIDE NECLUEAR, we must be treated like NATO ally.we will prove we are better or equal
CHINA we share same GOAL as of JAPAN/TAIWAN/MOST OF ASEAN including US
PAKISTAN we share same GOAL(uradical, focused on growth society).we also need CRIMINAL LIKE dawood(his network still makes calls and ...) most wanted in CIA list.other list is almost same.
AFGANISTAN- US and INDIA share same GOAL we dont need more then unradical,civil socity.if possible not hostile to INDIA.atlest not tool in PAKISTAN hand or for so called JIHAD
F16 OUT as PAK have them as WELL as CHINA FACTOR ? CISMOA and all related issue,
CHINA & PAKISTAN AS ENEMY pressing INDIA,US need china as ALLY FOR N.KOREA AS WELL IRAN so they cant influence them.INDIA NEED ECONOMIC GROWTH.not putting
so JAPAN/TAIWAN/MOST OF ASEAN even pakistan/china/afganistan share same
and paying FROM 2001-2011 BY NOT LOOKING at our security EVEN THEY KILL US/DESTOY HARMONY/criminol extorting/ruling from nexus.TERRISTST
ecomony-
The U.S. economy is $15 trillion; I think it will survive the loss of this $10 billion deal!
INDIA offered US govt to govt deal worth how much? 10(mmrca was 9.5 if u f16/f18 wins) billion is small amount i agree with you see data.
C-17.P8 only as eg more then ? so only fighter deal is not ECONOMICS.
ndia’s nuclear apartheid,
we thank USA for that,even we are not reconiged,have to give away neculeor test option.US firm are welcome to produce energy.if given option i will like to buy some share of firm and contribute. I WILL CALL IT GAME CHANGER AND VERY CRITICAL GOVT OF INDIA,but usa buissness thinking we are CHINA/Pakistan dont help.
we respact IPR,even we have most COLONIAL rule(i think US seen it long back )
interlocutor
its not hidden who in charge today itself when Pakistan NIA was in session,for in camera session(no camera/no notes/no minutes/even no was ready to Question fist with ISI/......./
i seriously doubt US have influence. lot more to be said i am leaving it unsaid here .
Left wing ideology
we kicked even last state today,expacting more strike Forced lockdown,no bribes.so they will use blackmail/ union fees
close relationship with the United States
we are in for it no one belive in old shit,even a villager laugh at it.
tech wise F16/f18 are being phased out even NATO allies looking new generation all winner
are nato allies .please dont crib. we are 1.2 billion humans home,
LAST NOT LEAST WE ARE WITH YOU BUT WE ARE DEMOCRACY AS YOU ARE .
GOOD NEWS India ratifies U.N. Convention Against Corruption.
MORE TO COME WE SHARE YOUR DREAM
Fareed, you have to stop thinking so hard .... go and relax at the beach before the world explodes with all your enlightened wisdom ! Or, lock yourself up in Guantanamo and spend an year in Solitary Confinement thinking about what you drank before writing this article. RIP.
I agree with Fareed on most of the issues, but not on this one. He is a brilliant analyst, but misses the point here. First, F16s are 4 decades old. This is a big investment for India for next 3-4 decades, so by next 30 years, these are already 7 decades old technology. Second, the next generation F22s are being offered to US's allies. By not putting F22s on the table, it is slapping on India's face, who is strategically significant to US to balance China. Third, Pakistan has F16s and knows its weaknesses very well. By not choosing US, India asking "aren't we good enough for F22s?" So it is a correct decision in the end.
When you are buying something so strategic for your pilots, your emotions should not rule. May be if US offers a better deal, we can take. This is by no means ending the relationship.
CNN. May be it's time to let Zakeria go?
Mr. Zakaria,
I disagree with you based on several reasons, a couple of which Rahul has mentioned. But lets take off our "Indian policy makers are shortsighted" hat, and think through this for a bit:
1) It is true that India has historically, since Independence, made choices that in hindsight were unwise and slightly hubristic in "moral" term. However, the same applies for many choices the US made. Cuba/ "opening China"/supporting Pakistan are just a few examples.
2) The US is not making life easier for India in the world out of altruisim. It is very nuanced realpolitik at work. True, India needs US support. But could you tell us which other country in the world would the US ally with in world where China is rising? Russia? Japan? Australia?.... I would imagine that the choice is quite obvious. So, the nuclear deal was not out of love for the poor Indian masses who need electricity. It was the first step in an elaborate wooing, perhaps because the choices are limited. But it is wooing for sure, the US wooing India. However for wooing succesfully, trust is an important factor I am sure you will agree.
3) Is it not very presumptious of the US to offer F-16s to India? Even if they are Block 70 super-duper ones? COnsidering the Pakistanis know most of there is to know about using the F-16. And what about the F-18? An aircraft that is being planned for replacement by the F35. But it surely is good enough for India, even if its high altitdue performance does not meet Indian airforce requirements.
Reminds me of the US offer to India in the '80s to supply the production line of the F-5 and the aborted F 20... which no other nation ever even considered seriously. The US judged that those aircrafts were sufficient for Indian needs.
4) It is true that 10 Billion wont make much of a dent in the US economy, especially when the US gives doles of billions to Pakistan so that they can keep folks like Bin Laden safe. Oh, and also Block 52 F-16s that were so useful in finding out Bin Laden and his ilk..
5) The US does not transfer snesitive technology for obvious reasons, even to the UK and Israel. Thus, India should just fold up and agree to buy planes with no technology transfer and no guaranteed support without political interference, I suppose. And that too when there are vendors who offer technology that will boost India's indigenous capabilities in the long run. Without intrusive end user monitoring. The choice here is a no brainer.
6) Strategy. Both India and US need each other for geopolitical reasons. The US knows that Pakistan takes the US doles, and then back stabs the US. Yet, the US allies itself with Pakistan because the needs is the US's. Similarly, cool minds in the US strategic community will realise and prevail that closeness with a "straightforward" India will need to be part of the US geopolitical objectives for the decades ahead, despite this small deal.
7) The great game again returns to where it was born. And it is in both India and US best interests to have independant yet alligned policies. Allignment does not mean in every thing, but in the broad objectives of freedoma and democracy and access to resources. And India, despite being shortsighted, is quite aware of this need for symbiosis. Therefore, for the first time perhaps, India has played the game according to what India needs and what India knows that the US also needs. Like in a any courtship, there sure are disagreements, but who really values a weak partner with no mind of its own?
So, Mr. Zakaria, I dont think that American strategists are shortsighted enough to let a great partnership be held hostage to small matters like independence in essential technologies and weapon systems.
I agree completely with Fareed . This is the right time for India – US relations to go to the next level . The biggest impediment to our relations comes from the old guard in the indian bureaucracy which still has not overcome the fall of the berlin wall. The current arms buying binge that we are on , should be used to further a geopolitical strategy that checks the rising dragon . India should form a strong bond US and japan , that along with our good relations with russia can be a credible deterrent against chinese aggression . China has already got us hemmed in from all sides , our only hope is for US to help keep Pakistan in check and for Russia , Japan and India to keep China honest. We should strongly lobby for a small permanent presence for US in Afghanistan and also increase our direct foot print there.
To the people who think this deal is just a rational purchase decision , I would like to say that you need to look at opportunity cost in this case . Learning from the past is one thing but you cannot live in the past , nuclear sanctions etc , India should not miss any opportunity to align with the US , as this could make all the difference to our future . We missed the bus in the 60s when south korea , japan , germany etc took the opportunity , this is our chance.
Don't balme Pakisan as Nation – We have some balck sheeps who back US but 99.9999% of Pakistanies don't like them. They are so selfish and opportunist. Please note that you will se India begging to US very soon for permanent seat, etc.
India would have been UN permanent by now if India had begged for it . Dear Irfan you will see soon your dream come true
It will take some time, before India can trust USA and/or other western countries with its national defense. Remember, during Kargil, how Sweden refused to supply the spare parts and Ammo for its Bofors Howitzer guns.. India had to go to Nigeria and buy those at twice the prices..
For USA, business relationship is one thing, but strategic relationship is complicated. Can USA be trusted when you really needs its support ? In 1981, USA decided to blatantly move away from "Rio Pact" and sided with Britain, during the Falkland war. There are many times, when USA has gladly screwed Pakistan when it decided supplying them is not in their interest.
Zakaria probably doesn't know that, USA (Nixon) also almost attacked India in Dec 1971 during Pak conflict (that created Bangladesh), when it moved its Warships from Vietnam to Bay of Bengal. Thanks to Indira Gandhi and Brezhnev, US fleet found itself staring at the face of USSR nuclear subs surfaced all across the Bay of Bengal. It was this incident that India decided to go along with USSR, not 1962 Sino-Indo conflict as some has mentioned here.
All this is still fresh in memory. May be we can Build some trust in each other after several more decades of outsourcing or whatever, and the worry about military hardware.
With Russia, buying weapons is based in trust on each other. Both parties know, one will not go out to screw the other in the time of need.
Fareed is my favorite political commentator in the whole world. But I agree with the folks like Rahul who have disagreed with him this time. I think Fareed wouldn't be human if he never made a very ordinary comment as he has. Think of all the wonderful shows he turns out week after week and forgive him for the lack of perspective in this one.
Poor Zakaria, he has lost his brains. There is no single reason in the article for why the U.S. jets should have been bought by India, despite higher prices. In stead, Zakaria laments on his bad feelings about Indo-Soviet relation. India is still a democracy despite Soviet relation. U.S.' friends: Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, ... – all are military dictatorship. In effect it is a worthless article.
Fareed,
I am an avid follower of your articles/programs/blogs. I respect your views but I disagree with this one. I personally think that this may have been the right decision for the following reasons:
a) I believe the European fighters were down selected based on technical merits in the Indian context
b) Offsets provided by Typhoon & Rafael are better than what the US offered. Remember this is essential because we need to utilize these deals to build our indigenous capabilities
c) Indians are not sure they are getting the best bang for their buck with the US aircraft. US would have transferred sensitive technology to India without us signing the CISMoA, BeCA & LOA which we are not comfortable with. We could have been held hostage to their whims & fancies. US has proven to be an unreliable supplier in the past.
d) By awarding this deal to Europeans, Indians are diversifying their vendor base. We now procure military technology from Russians, Europeans (British, French), US, Israel.
e) As far as the argument for closer cooperation with USA goes, I believe that Indians have already placed orders for over $10 bn to the US in the recent past including ones such as procurement of Poseidon Reconnaissance aircraft, C130 Hercules and C17 Hercules! And there are many more to come...
f) Finally, Indians are planning for aircraft with another 40 years shelf life. What is the point in going in for aircraft which originated in 1970s such as F-16? Moreover, where will we have an edge over Pakistan's F16s even if Lockheed promises to give us "super" capabilities
I encourage you to also read
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME11Df04.html
I think the decision is more to please Europe as US always stands beside Pakistan whenever is conflict. India may not be sure about parts supply after conflict. They may be suspicious that proceeds may go to Pakistan. They did not choose Russian planes partly for quality and partly for political reason. Surely, I am with Zakaria with added reason that sale would have brought two biggest democracies together and helped the US in this economy who can be depended to reciprocate.
With due respect Mr. Fareed Zakaria please India knows what is best for India, not everything in the world should be seen from Washington view of the world. America will sell to you today and tomorrow will say if you do not do A,Band C you are not going to get spare parts etc. may be that is what India is trying to avoid.
You are saying US $15 trillion economy would not make difference by loosing $10B deal. So then what is the issue here. I strongly believe India's planners are using good math and decided to go Europe.
Granted, it was a poor strategic move.
However, two things must be taken into account.
1. Washington has an unnerving habit of slapping sanctions on anyone and everyone should they set a toe out of line. 126 grounded planes may be acceptable to a policymaker but emphatically not to any military man. This deal was prioritzed as an Air Force deal first and a political one second. The fact that the American planes didn't make into the final round of bidding has little, if anything, to do with strategic planning and more to do with the inability of top Air Force brass to stake 126 planes on American political whim.
2. On paper, both American offers (the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-16IN Super Viper) are vastly inferior to _all_ the other contenders. The F/A-18E/F is a carrier-based fighter and as such loses a lot of range and payload capacity even compared to the F-14 Tomcat that it replaced in the 1990s. A multirole fighter that cannot carry sufficient quantities of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance and cannot make a round trip from a non-forward airbase in India to central Pakistan and back, is a tactical nightmare. It would limit the plane to frontline service where attrition would see it made useless within the early stages of a real shooting war. And if India considers China a serious military threat, then the Super Hornet is even more useless.
The F-16 on the other hand is out for one very simple reason – Pakistan operates the type and the biggest tactical mistake an air force can make is to operate an aircraft that their enemy knows inside out.
And you've failed to take into account the FMS purchases India has recently made – C-17 tactical airlifters, C-130Js and a commitment to purchase Boeing P-8 Poseidons when they're ready, a total commitment of about $5.5bn. And FMS means there was no bidding – these were preferential contracts gifted to US companies.
Now maybe if the Americans made decent cars...
I think the problem was the fact that US was offering india old technology. It would have been better if US had offered the newly developed F15 SE (Silent eagle), an enhanced version of F15 with stealth technology even with internal weapons bay. All the US was offering was F16(soon to be retired, and already in possession with Pak), and F18 (another plane to be replaced by the JSF)! So it wasnt a good deal for india in the long run (bear in mind this program would extend to atleast the next 40 years)
Hello!
Mr Fareed Zakaria
your comment clearly shows your agony of the US having lost a business deal. But, Mind you don't think that you Americans are some super intelligent and we Indians are fools sitting at New Delhi. you should remember that you Americans were slaves of the British before 1790, but you speak as if you are some born super power country. By the way, we really don't need you as you don't need us, and we are no way dependent on you. we can fight our own wars with Pakistan and we have won over them 3 times . We are not afraid of Pakistan anyway , the only thing Pakistan can do is like, launch a terrorist attack here and there in Kashmir thats all , and we also can do the same in Islamabad Karachi Lahore and give them sleep less nights, as our country's youth are no less than these cheap so called warriors of Allah. If our country's population just walks over Pakistan, the entire Pakistanis will be stamped under our feet. we dont require a nuclear bomb to settle the score with them. and by the way , you people suffered last year in recession and many americans stayed in a tent making that as their home . but that recession did not affect our country anyway, we had a decent happy life that itself should be a indication that idia is not depent on any country . on the other hand its only a give and exchage policy. so dont teach us lesson as if you are some 300 years old man, there are many elderly intelligent people in india than you here.. anyway you didn't(US) deserve our aircraft order, as it did not meet our requirements. we don't spend our precious money on cheap military equipments (aircraft. by the way i'm a PPL Private Pilot License holder so i know about aircrafts) better luck next time.. poor chap...zakariya I think he should be a mouth peice of disgusted comment by Anupriya 25 Chennai City INDIA .
Hello!
Mr Fareed Zakaria
your comment clearly shows your agony of the US having lost a business deal. But, Mind you don't think that you Americans are some super intelligent and we Indians are fools sitting at New Delhi. you should remember that you Americans were slaves of the British before 1790, but you speak as if you are some born super power country. By the way, we really don't need you as you don't need us, and we are no way dependent on you. we can fight our own wars with Pakistan and we have won over them 3 times . We are not afraid of Pakistan anyway , the only thing Pakistan can do is like, launch a terrorist attack here and there in Kashmir thats all , and we also can do the same in Islamabad Karachi Lahore and give them sleep less nights, as our country's youth are no less than these cheap so called warriors of Allah. If our country's population just walks over Pakistan, the entire Pakistanis will be stamped under our feet. we dont require a nuclear bomb to settle the score with them. and by the way , you people suffered last year in recession and many americans stayed in a tent making that as their home . but that recession did not affect our country anyway, we had a decent happy life that itself should be a indication that idia is not depent on any country . on the other hand its only a give and exchage policy. so dont teach us lesson as if you are some 300 years old man, there are many elderly intelligent people in india than you here.. anyway you didn't(US) deserve our aircraft order, as it did not meet our requirements. we don't spend our precious money on cheap military equipments (aircraft. by the way i'm a PPL Private Pilot License holder so i know about aircrafts) better luck next time.. poor chap...zakariya.. I think he should be a mouth peice of disgusted US defense marketing agency comment by Anupriya 25 Chennai City INDIA .
How much you paid for the license.
well!
I never purchased the license according to your comment, and i dont need to do so, as iam not a stupid, I cleared my COPRTR (certificate of profiency radio telephony ) then my FRTO (flight radio telephone operator license) then i joined madras flying club TamilNadu INDIA . flew for 60 hours, did my local flying cross country flying training, sat for all the 4 papers (1) test for air regulation (2) test for air navigation (3) test for metreology (4) test for cessna 152 172 and piper seneca III Aircraft and engines . After clearing all those papers i applied to DGCA Director general of civil aviation INDIA and i obtained the license.... i think you got it ...
He has no idea what he is talking about.....It assumes that the same group in Indian Govt has made the decisions of the past 50 years. Thats no more truer than blaming Obama for Vietnam war. Anyway, the bottom line is that in this day of a "global" economy, many nations will shop around for what they feel is the best bargain.... There is no planned out long term strategy in this decision.....We all know that in the end it will come out that the Europeans greased more palms / payed for more kickbacks than the American competition. !
The main question is how much is Fareed being paid by Lockheed Martin and/or Boeing to write this article?
Pakistan became American ally right after the partition and remained so, and India Soviet ally, supported Soviet Union in its war against the Americans and remained so until the end of cold war, and then America dumped Pakistan.
India became the new closest ally.
The direction of everything changed after the world trade center incident.
World trade center incident came as a surprise.
Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.
Pakistan orchestrated the Soviet war, and that changed many things for Pakistan and made America the sole super power.
Bush gave tax breaks to corporations who move their jobs and plants overseas, and that stirred up almost all sectors of Chinese and Indian economy,
And the policy led the two countries to highest growth rates, and lots of money.
And the Bush's initiatives led Americans to heavy and lingering unemployment, foreclosures, inflation, huge deficits coupled with excessive spending on wars.
Unemployment further reduced overall taxes & increased the deficit.
Who know what is in the waiting in the next 10 years, and the direction will change accordingly.
Life is full of surprises.
India may have made the right choice, because it knows America cannot not a reliable ally.
India may have learned its lesson from how America is treating its longest standing ally like Pakistan today, why could it not do the same with it tomorrow under a different situation.
It would not take America much time to switch Allys based on its new needs.
What if the new president decides to tax on imports, if China does not stop manipulating its currency,
And what if the law that gives huge tax breaks to those who send jobs overseas, move businesses overseas, is rescinded. (15,000 American businesses have their headquarters in the same building in Cayman Islands to avoid taxes)
Nobody knows what is next?
Dear Mr. Zakaria,
I think you need to get your facts straightened out.
1. The MMRCA competition going with the Euro fighters instead of the American fighters stem from multiple reasons. The first of which is logistics; India already operates a fleet of Mirage fighters. The second of which is technology transfer; the European defence firms are more accommodating in this respect than the American defence firms. The third reason builds upon the second reason: self-sufficiency (aka autonomy); relying on American fighters means a contract that specifically limits the availability of parts which has a knock-on effect on maintenance and operational readiness. If you haven't heard already, when the Indian Air Force went to the US for the Red Flag Exercises, they complained about runway debris that could mess up the engines on their Sukhois, thus making it a huge hassle to ship the engine back to Russia for repairs.
2. Regarding why Mao decided to attack India, I suggest that you Google "India Forward Policy." Also, when the Nehru Administration publicly proclaimed that it would "evict the Chinese soldiers from Indian territory" WHILE China was actively pursuing a diplomatic option and being rebuffed by the Nehru Administration, I would say that India deserved to have its arse kicked not only for declaring war, but also for being a douchebag and an idiot. Do remember that there was a short armistice during the China-India War where China asked India to go back to the negotiating table but the Nehru Administration gave them the middle finger.
Do note that all of this is public information so it is pretty obvious that you didn't bother to do your homework.
1) USA might not depend on that 10 billion dollar deal. But India badly depends on that 10 billion dollar money to build its airforce. India has done right in choosing superior fighter jets because that serves the purpose of the whole purchase , than to buy anything a tentative partner who for sure will keep himself away when the real war happens between india and Pakistan or India and china.
2) What the Americans offered Indians was just one or two levels higher than what pakistan has. But IAF needs to buy what it can use to handle the superior China has. The decision is well guided by policy of seeing china as the real threat as the Indian government has often declared.
3) Though Indo-US relationship is on the right path, India needs to and can set its terms of relationship at this level and only at this level. Even symbolically, it could not have become better, than able to tell that we will say a NO if that is the right decision. India-Russian relationship started in a similar tone and now they work like equal partners. For India to remain India , It needs to be able to move the relationship with US from superior partner to that of a equal partner.
4) When it comes to siding with loosing side, This is not a out right war where being on the winning side is the only way to thrive. It is diplomacy . It is more about getting the best out the relationship and it is an obvious fact that you can talk and get more from a partner who has more and is needing you more than a partner who has more and does not need you more.
All said and done. India is still buying $11 Billion worth H/W from US. I dont think this deal not happening is wrong in any ways. Go by what India needs and not what US wants to sell (Remember US H/W comes with End user monitoring.) Would US make purchase decision for itself with string attached like that. FZ is no expert on these highly complicated matters and should focus more on what his expertise is, US administration still knows what its selling to India and isnt making any noise, who is FZ then. I dont think US will ever help India if its not in its interest, Nuke deal happened because of the business it promised to US. Allow same for Indian too.
India did a right thing, Why should a 10billion deal should be a barometer? India invested in planes and not in relationship. This is very proffessional decision. More over Europen planes are very advanced and superior and value 10billion. If US sell F22s India will buy. India and US have common interests, good liberal nations, development oriented, so their relations will be good. If not this deal, some other mutually profitable deal will happen like Nuclear deal of 2008. Goodluck to India and US, God bless India nd US.
The reason why US and America have never been close allies and are not "natural allies" as most pundits wrongly predict is simply this. Our Basis of foreign policy differs. For US its all about self interest. About ends rather than means and about looking at short term gain forgetting long term implications. For India its about the means, about being consistent. America swears by the doctrine "self interest over morality", A true Indian never accepts such doctrines. India and US – though the best examples of democracy in the world – only seem natural allies to those who look at things superficially. The differences deep down are immense. Lets face it. America isnt Obama – its kissinger and India is forever Mahatma Gandhi. Now how many want to say Gandhi and kissinger are natural allies?
Well, having read the article and the various points made in the comments above, I do think India has the right to be cautious while taking such "strategic" decisions.
The point is, USA as a country will always consider its interests first! or else why wouldn't the US recognise India as a nuclear-weapons-state?!
What are the so-called favors US considers having done for India??
The Visa for Indians? – stop granting them! That could actually mitigate the brain drain, faced by India. And if you're wondering: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576313490871429216.html
Is US doing a favor to India by outsourcing business to India? This has to do with pure corporate greed – higher profits always by using the cheap qualified labour...
Looks like FZ wrote this just to make Americans happy. If US economy is 15 tn USD and the deal was for only 10 bn USD, why did Obama himself get involved in this? If America doesnt need India, why are they making so much fuss about this? All the history about siding with Soviets is irrelevant. US supported Pak and Taliban to oust Soviets from Afghan. Pak on the other hand used this to destabilized India. So India had to turn to the Soviets during the height of the cold war. Fast forward to 2011: The fact is that both US and India need each other, to control Pak and China!!! And the 10 bn deal is only one of the several such big ticket deals. So stop fretting and bullying... just come to the table with the best you can offer to India!
I am surprised with Zakaria. India needs US more than US needs India? That is the kind of arrogance that makes other countries hate us, the US. Mr Zakaria, it is not very hard to comprehend that US offered India older technology comared to their European counterparts. I am also surprised at your intellect in this matter. The process is very simple- 1) Indian Air Force shortlisted the jets, which is not a political process but a technical process and finally the politics come in place where the govt choses from those shortlisted jets based on their foreign policy.
So, IAF did not find f-18's or f-16's meet their needs. India also believes in transfer of technology which US is not excited about. If this was just a political purchase, India should have bought the US jets, but the fact is that IAF's inventory is running low and outdated (except Su-30MKI, possibly the best non-stealth jet) and they need to make a defense need based decision.
I am perplexed about the Fareed's reasoning of calling this bad. Other than trying to prove to his audience that he is more American than Indian, I can not think of anything else.
The facts as I see other than those already expressed eloquently by quite a few people:
1. India has a full fledged military aircraft building facility and to keep it functioning, every place that India has bought – Migs, Sukhois, Mirages and may be even Harriers have been assembled there with some kind of a tech transfer.
2. India doesnt want to be caught up in the one-up-man-ship game that is played between two parties in USA – some Christian gets killed in US and Republican party asks for sanctions. And some other policy is not liked and Democrats want some sanctions. These are going to be the main part of IAF and no risks could be taken with the supplies
3. It is also a political way of showing that India has an independent decision making authority not influenced by anyone especially after wikileaks which show american diplomats trying to bulldoze indian politicians
4. India has bought planes from England, France and Russia with reasonable success.
On the subject of Indian partnership with Soviet Union/Russia, no other country has done so much to any other country as much as USS did to India. When India didnt have anything – no powerplants, no steel plants etc, and no other country was willing to help, USSR helped India become industrialized albeit in a small way. Yes, they were not as advanced when it came to Electronics technology but at that time what India needed was ability to stand on its feet. And every Indian leader was rebuffed by USA.
Even without having all these discussions it can be said that India did good – look at where it is now compared to many countries which were at the same state 50 years back
When USA ALLY Pakistan was building nuke USA turned its back, if India had war, 99% it will be with USA ALLY Pakistan.
What will happen if USA stop supply of spares cause we are in war with their ally?
So this decision was right on money and Fareed who is smart got wrong on this one.
Dude Zak, I would've understood if you were from Pakistan, but being from Mumbai, India – your horizon of thinking is very narrow and shortsighted.....remember your representing CNN – the largest mouth piece of American propaganda!!! Oops, I just said it.....
I have also been hearing here and there over the Internet, apparently some big think tank in Washington considers your opinions in the matters of global foreign policy – if that is really the case (I dont believe it is...) – then God Save America...
-Peace Lover
What Zak wrote makes no sense what so ever. Would you Zak buy a product from a store or manufacturer jus because it is in your neibourhood which doesnt give good deal, and product support?
If the relation between these countries fall apart just because of this silly reason, well then there is no point in having a relationship at all.
Nonsense !!
Fareed idea of not choosing the US jets is flawed because the decision was made purely on logical basis. There are some strong reasons for not going ahead with the US on this deal:
1. Both the US jets fared badly on the parameters set by the Indian Airforce. Nobody is is saying that the F-16s or the F-18s are bad but they didn't fulfill the requirements set by the user users which in this case is India's airforce.
2. It was hard this time for US to push India to buy from it because of the heightened public awareness on corruption in India's public domain. The decision makers were not in a position to accept any nudge from the Americans on the deal because that would have added more fuel to already burning public anger directed against the Govt.
3. US wants India to accept certain restrictive terms and conditions on usage of these fighters which India felt was unnecessary.
4. European fighters fared well in the trials on the set parameters and they didn't set any restrictions unlike the US which didn't wish to give its advanced radars and other technologies to the Indians while the Europeans had no issues with it.
5. These planes are already in use in Pakistan and buying these planes would not give Indians any higher ground. So they simply opted out of it.
These are some of the things that went in favor of the Europeans. And other things the Fareed pointed out doesn't stand any ground. Every nation makes mistakes because nobody has any idea on what the future holds, we can only make future models and base our current decisions on those, hoping to get it correct. What were US strategists doing during the Bangladesh war, were they not wrong. What was US doing with the ISI in Afghanistan during the 80's. Pentagon was funding Osama bin laden. US created OBL. Was that not a strategic blunder?. India also made mistakes in Sri Lanka. Siding with Soviet was not a blunder on India's part, India never collapsed because it runs on the same principles as the United States, may be the only nation in that part of the volatile world to do so. India is buying other military hardware from US like those huge transport aircrafts, ships etc. Please note India has waived the tender mechanism for these and is going for direct govt-to-govt sales. US is the only nation to have such facilities. India needs US at the same time US also needs a strong India to may be counter-balance China. But the problem is nobody is sure if India is falling in line or not. This is what stems Fareed idea on the decision to not to go the american way on this sale.
It's so much easier now to assess what's behind Fareeds thought process, basically an opportunist with a Muslim name who would even sell his mother if he had to for money. Initially I thought may be he is trying to safeguard Indias interest, not so much. Off course he has congress blood running through is veins
There is this shallow and cliched tendency to believe that the break up of the Soviet Union made Russia a looser in the shake out. Clearly thats not the case.
By India being close in its ties to the former Soviet Union especially in the speher of defence, it has reaped handsome dividends in science and technology which India otherwise would not have been able to access from the USA onsidering the kind of government and its policies the US suffered under from the Nixon and Kissinger administrations.
These were then replaced by the indecisive Jimmy Carter and the more hostile arrogant and backward thinking Ronald Reagan the most hostile, myopic and destructive leader in the western world for decades whose achievements included setting up the Mujahideen later the Taleban. His off the cuff remarks about Indira Gandhi perhaps sums up the calibre of government at the time in the USA.
There is no way in the world Zakariah could convince me that India's decision to suddenly switch its arms purchases of outdated FA18 aircraft would have been an intelligent decision. India is slow and in many respects indiecisive. It has though always remained staunchly independent and averse to the terms and conditions the US in particular places on arms purchases which interfere with a country like India's indpendent foreign and domestic policies.
After reading through all the comments, it is appalling how ignorant American readers of CNN are. That US gave India any aid is such a lie. Go to this link http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Final_DP_2009_06_08092009.pdf and see yourself who US has been giving aid. Pakinstan, Egypt, Saudi, Israel and other countries of questionable characters. The reality today is US cannot be without India and China. Zakaria's analysis is completely incorrect, gives wrong comparisons and facts – IMO typical of CNN. I am a Fox News guy. India's enemy is Pakistan – who have been gifted same aircraft that US was planning to "sell" to India. There is no competitive advantage. Also, India is already tuned to Jaguar and other EU made aircrafts. So it makes good sense for them to go with that technology. US can continue to gift tax payer dollars to all Islamic countries around the world and keep complaining they are backstabbing. India had nothing to do with US "aid" or "support"and will probably continue to be a "trade alliance" like everyone else in the world. India worked hard to be where they are. And rest of the liberals can go back and continue to watch their nonfactual CNN news, Jersey Shore and MTV Teen motherhood while rest of the world will continue to progress in right direction.
Why would we try to sell our best equipment to someone who stood beside Soviet Union during 3 decades. Can they be trusted? Let them buy more junk from Russia and let them find out the truth if they ever have to use these against Pakistan or China.
Oh, India NEEDs the USA, don't they? US Agri-business has sent a generation of Indian farmers right into debt and into their graves, because of bio-engineered seed that produces no viable and reproductive seed. These farmers ended up having to continue buying the 'wonder' seeds at 100x inflated prices, and all with the promises of riches from growing these engineered crops. And how many stories have we read about Indian farmers drinking pesticide to end the misery that US business has thereby caused them?
And what technology has the US especially shared with India that it hasn't shared with another country? None!
And won't India want close US ties after the US Dollar falls off a cliff and is worth next to nothing on the international market, as the US prints it's way out of debt?
Looks to me like India is doing pretty well with it's pharmaceutical and software industry, to name just a couple of industrical sectors.
And Fareed Zakaria thinks India should bend over again and take it up the arse, from the USA?
Yes, the Indians really needs to depend on the US, just like Haiti and many other third world countries.
The truth is, India needs America like India needs leprosy.
First of all, its disgusting to talk about weapons,this arms race and all the stupid feces happening when there is poverty and illiteracy inflicting our fellow humans.
What a pathetic world we live in.
Just monkeys killing monkeys..and the media thrives on it
India has already purchased billions of dollars worth of military hardware from US and wll be spending billions more in the future. So why make a big deal if India does not buy US fighter jets? May be India wants to give business to other countries. Otherwise these countries will not buy Indian products and services.
I am a Pakistani. I think it is a smart decision by Indians. US is the most unreliable ally in the world. They will dump you in a instant for their myopic strategy and short term gain. Learn from Pakistan. I sincerely believe Pakistan should move away from US and try to improve relations with India and Afghanistan independent of US. Pakistani establishment should give personal assurance to Indians that no terrorist threat will emanate from Pakistan against them.
This article proves, that Mr. Zakaria is mouth-piece of US establishment.
Well said Imran. It would be heartening to know a pakistani wants to improve relations with India by terminating terror networks in Pakistan.
As usual, I find that I broadly agree with Fareed's comments. However, he rarely brings to bear the same degree of careful scrutiny on the US's own stand, as he does, say on Pak's or India's– a pity, given such a knowledgeable person.
In my opinion, both the US and Pak are paying the karmic price according to the adage: "Sponsor a freedom fighter; get a terrorist for free". In the US's case, the ghosts of the Mujahideen freedom fighers have, in some way, returned to haunt you as Al Qaida; in Pak's case, it is the conducive atmosphere provided to Kashmiri `freedom fighters' that has provided an infestuous breeding ground for those very jihadi terrorists who are now causing Pak to complain of `sacrifices' they have made!
I wish that our brethren in the US and Pak would try to understand how the no doubt difficult situations they face today are effects of their own actions done earlier. The US is no more unilaterally responsible for Pak's misery today, than Pak is of the specter of terrorism the US faces today.
$10 billion is just a piece of India's military purchases. India has already singed several billion dollars of military deals with U.S. or in the pipeline. Zakaria need to look at the whole picture and not just one deal. Let Indian's decide what is best for them as they know the ground reality more than anyone else.
I have found this piece has elicited valid & interesting comments and these, generally, are contrary to the Fareed's thoughts. I do not know how big a strategic analyst he is, nor what his nationality is. However, no one can change India's experience with the USA, through the years since the Chinese aggression in 1962, in terms of support in a crisis situation, let alone war. When that is understood, it automatically puts a question mark on their reliability – forget long-term, even in the short-term. In addition, there is the quality of the platform with all its add-ons being offered to the IAF. The tests show that there are better offers which meet India's needs. When, on both counts, the reliability factor is against the USA, the decision is correct to let the USA be. There will surely be occasions, of international import, where they will have the opportunity to show, maybe prove, a pro-India stance. Build confidence in their trustworthiness. If it is so overwhelming that their products, particularly those which would be crucial in war, despite not being the best, would suit India's needs, then one may say that India is not thinking right. As the matters stand today, India has been strategically wise to delete US from the prospective list at the cut-off stage. It would have been more difficult later.
Fareed is a meaningless journalist just offering an Indian perspective for every single problem in the world. I'd love to debate this guy on national tv about this issue with Pakistan.
What seems like coming, is another Afghanistan like situation (for Pakistan in this case), costing U.S tax payers 10 Billion a year. We left Afghanistan earlier than we had to, now we are on our path in creating confrontation with Pakistan, probably not realizing the extent of issues we could be getting into over the next 30 years. We need to solve this issue with respecting sovereignty for other countries while taking out the terrorists with cooperation from Pakistanis. They've helped us in getting the no:3,4 and 100's of other guys. Why not trust and give them a respectful chance this time?
Fareed ..let me ask you a question. How come you have NEVER put together a show talking about WHY all highly paid American jobs are being sent to India to profit 1% the American population while putting millions of people out of work?
The media talk is to complain about China which produces raw material by buying technology from the west. India, doesn't buy a whole lot from the U.S (they just gave billions of dollars to Europeans for jets that they should've bought from the U.S. as they are our "natural ally's"?
I'd love to see Mr. Zakaria showing some patriotism (he's a naturalized U.S. citizen from India?) and running a show about hundreds of billions of dollars and jobs going to India so the corporate people get rich. India then uses the same money to lobby the U.S. and gets more jobs pushed towards India. The lobby money...is paid by the U.S.
So what's more important to Americans? 10 B in military spending or the hundreds of billions going to India in shapes of jobs, etc?, resulting in millions of Americans out of WORK!!!
Fareed, show us your American patriotic side and run a program covering how America can SAVE jobs here instead of supporting your Indian heritage in everything. I think you are a good journalist but you need to quit lobbying India into everything. It is getting old. The world problems don't have on solution, i.e. to involve India in everything or how it is such a great country. If that was the case, we'd be sending Americans to India for jobs. Not the other way around. Looking forward to a program about how to save jobs and keep them in America and get America back to being a rich country!!!!
America has bent over backwards for India. Billions of dollars of outsourcing and then that money is being used to invest into Indian labor in America, win government contracts by the Indian community, support loans for the Indian community to becomes doctors, engineers, etc, etc. Sponsoring legally and illegally for U.S immigration. And ALL these things impact the Americans. The Americans are the ones to lose jobs while during recessions there was almost no Indian person without jobs (only less than 5% out of 13 million Americans)?
I appreciate Fareed's Indian heritage but I'd love to see his Indian-American side (show some patriotism towards America please?). I am looking forward to a program that shows how AMERICA can save jobs HERE in America. How we can go back to being a wealthy country and NOT outsourced every single job to India.
Does ANYONE in this country has any clue as to what's going on as a secret agenda? Give it 20 years and you'll see an Indian president running America. America has already become an indirect United States of India!!!
Outsourcing isn't a favor that America is granting India; it has to do with keeping costs/overheads low (cheap qualified labour as compared to...) for the American businesses and some industries to still have a competitive edge in the era of globalisation. Whatever happened to market forces, especially in one of the freest economy in the world?
About immigration – the US government isn't granting Visas to anybody; they are taking the highly qualified (which maybe why Indians were not unemployed in as large numbers as Americans during the recession). As said before that might actually mitigate the brain drain faced by India. Even the American government is aware of the contribution of these skilled immigrants in the US: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576313490871429216.html
Jay in the whole scheme of things – the US companies have used Indian tech services to bolster their bottom lines – but guess what – if you really look at what has created the mess here is that our politicians have created incentives for these companies to invest in plant and equipment in China in a huge way and literally wiped out our manufacturing heartland.... but hold on – even worse than that by doing so we have GIVEN away our technology to the Chinese AND allowed our corporations and cartels to keep most of their profits offshore so that people like you bear the brunt of taxes while GE / Google and such big boys pay NOTHING !
Spending trillions on useless war in Iraq / Afghanistan, keeping troops for decades in Korea / Japan / Germany / Phillipines etc. providing aid to useless 'allies' such as Israel / Pakistan / Egypt etc. have drained this country over and above that! So lets keep the focus right as to what the major cuprits are? How stupid can we get ?
Fareed,
Easily solved: Let the the US offer some AESA radars, and the Indians will buy them.
Why is it America's fault? – the Pakistani's are constantly whining about how we are bad for them, yet they take with both hands as they spite our every effort. What hypocrites, let them stew in their own vitriol, without our money. America, the great patsy for a decadent world of users and liars.
First of all, the Europeans offered a better deal than did the US. SO the US needs to introspect. Secondly, should India have accepted a inferior deal just to gain the advantage of aligning with US strategically? There is no evidence to suggest that at all. To have any sort of leverege over India, US must first give India something. Remember the hallow threats of Clinton administration after India went nuclear? They all shouted they would sanction India, stop all aid to India etc etc Till The indian foreign minister , Jaswant Singh camly appeared before a nation and the world to smile (almost mockingly) at the Americans and tell them "what aid". The analysts in US including Fareed thought Going Nuclear was a mistake by India. The results speak for itself. It was not a mistake. Unfortunately US only knows how to flex muscle and also respects those who flex muscle. Back to this topic, how about just saying well done europe for winning this one. This isnt abouyt India and US. This was about Europe becoming smarter than US.
people really miss the facts on this one. its fairly simple really.
1. the reason the US supported dictators in the reigon including pakistan(which is wrong yes) . and the Mujahadin (which is not the same as taliban so get it right) is because it was staunchly anti communist. that means whatever government thats in place at the time had to be better than the communists. im not saying this is right i'm just saying that was the policy through the cold war. it got us a lot of enemies and gave us a bad name but we also made a few friends. both sides made mistakes and chose policy that benefited there own states at the expense of others just as every country does today and has done forever.
2. the US never backed the indians because it was a huge dangerous ally of the Soviets. pretty simple there.
3.the reason the french are such good friends with the indians is because they've always been rivals with the british and they desperately wanted anther sphere of influence in the area after there loss of French indonesia. again. pretty simple there.
4. the soviets have not now nor at any time during and after the coldwar supplied "crap" there strategy was different from ares but at the same time was very very effective and efficient. the US typically went for quality over quantity. while the soviets would go for a more quality that actually worked and was easy and cheap to manufacture over american higher quality that had massive costs and was often inefficient. yes they made the mistake of being communist though because everyone with a highschool diploma knows a communist government cant compete economically against capatalist oponents. again. its different tech but still extremely capable and dangerous and to say the soviets had "crap" or whatever is ignorant and stupid.
5. the same goes for american f/a-18's and f-16's its essentially the american response to massive amounts of cheap efficient Migs the soviets were fielding and supplying. if you've done any research on either plane you'd know that both actually competed for the contract of cheap efficient air superiority fighters that would give us a numerical bounce to catch up with the soviets. the f-16 originally won but the f-18 was later resurected by lockhead and mcdonnell douglas and found a niche in the Navy. both are still extremely capable and versatile planes and the airframes aren't "obsolete" as some would suggest. they're 4th gen aircraft and when you just do a little research you'd realize that most of the world still relies on 4th gen or even 3rd gen aircraft with upgraded electronics and radar. they are being phazed out in the US yes but they are far from "obsolete"
6. the indians have been buying european and soviet aircraft basically since they became a country and they have a better relationship not to mention surplus of parts, And yes the eurofighter is a 4.5 gen aircraft and if thats what your looking for than thats what your gonna buy. f-18s aren't obsolete but they are outclassed by the much newer eurofighter.
7. and finally saying that the indians need the US. more than we need them is a little ignorant i think. especially because if the US could get a similar relationship with india that it has with china would not only benefit the indians with massive exports but at the same time hamper china hugely. think about it. if you could take 50% of your trade away from china and give it to the indians it would wreck china while not destroying them it would certainly slow there growth which i'm sure not just americans would appreciate
oh one more. there were a few saying that the US only gives its best technology to the Israelis. thats completely false. while we do have a good military relationship with the israelis we don't give anyone our "top of the line stuff" we refused to give them f-22's for just one example. i believe they're getting f-15 silent eagles instead. and the brits are the number one partner in the f-35 project. so were the canadians for awhile but with all of there military cuts i'm not sure if they're really interested anymore but thats not really the point. but yeah. if your willing to spend the coin you can get US stealth technology however it wont be as sound as the planes we make for ourselves (computers, radar, etc) but you can get it
I agree: just to get to the Moon first, India needs the US;
It just goes to show, one more obvious time, how left wingers are mentally impaired!
I am an avid fan of Fareed Zakaria and feel he is the best CNN has to offer. However, to suggest that US is no longer going to be friends with India because it did not go along with $10 B deal is a very strong statement to make. First, USA has no permanent friends and enemies albit exception of perhaps England and it looks after its interest which is right thing to do. Similarly, India too should do the same.
Even though USSR is no longer the strong country it once was, it has always been a reliable partner which is very important in defense situation. Secondly, there is always this doubt about USA that it only looks after its own interest. India will be foolish to align its defense strategy with USA and make it dependent on USA. USA may try to dominate India's foreign policy especially against China and India doesn't need to be a pawn for carrying out USA policy against China. Lastly, if India needs USA, the reverse is equally true and USA will be really foolish to determine its foreign policy based on $10B – there are many more $10B's to be made or lost in future decades between USA and India.
so disappointing !!!!
enemy's ennmy is friend so lets talk about friend pl so lets talk about india only pl
http://www.wttsnxt.com/my_forum/viewtopic.php?t=29
“When no doubt remained about Pakistan’s defeat Nixon sent a naval ship, USS Enterprise to the Bay of Bengal on 11th December 1971. It was interpreted by India to be a nuclear threat. On 6th and 13th December, the Soviet Union dispatched from Vladivostok, two groups of ships containing nuclear arms as well as a submarine. From 18th December to 7th January 1972 the Soviet ships trailed the US task force.”
Do you forgot that America send their seventh fleet against India at the time of India and Pakistan war and Russians has to come and help India !!! Do you think India shall forget this?
IHAVE FOUND A WAY TO MOTIVATE ALL OUR KID NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY, TO GET IN BETTER SHAPE AND START EATING BETTER, ON THEIR OWN. YES, ON THEIR OWN. I'VE BEEN IN THE FITNESS AND SPORTS NUTRITION BUSINESS FOR 50 YEARS. THIS CAME ABOUT BECAUSE ODMY DAD. HE WAS ALWAYS MY INSPIRATION, ONHIS DEATH BED, HE SAID YOU'VE BEEN GETTING MEN AND WOMEN IN SHAPE A FEW AT A TIME. WHY DON'T YOU FIND A WAY TO MOTIVATE OUR KIDS TO GET IN BETTER SHAPE AND EAT BETTER. SO, I DID. THE SCHOOLS WE'VE TESTSD OUR SYSTEM WITH, WORKED LIKE A CHARM. CARE TO DISCUSS IT. OUR KIS ARE AT RISK. LET'S DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE FORMAT FOR THIS,BUT I'M COUNTING ON YOUR PROFESSIONALSM AND YOUR COMITMENT TO A BETTER WORLD. BEN'Q'
Business is Business.
If you get better planes from somewhere else for the same or less money then you should go for it.
Its capitalism brothers, the most american of all ideology so live with it.
people who are bankrupt has no business pl !!!!
India is just aiming permanent UN security seat. Once US will tired from Pakistan-Afghanistan problem. US will not have option any other then India. So US will say " YES" seat . US knows the second biggest issue after terrorism is CHINA. US will have to deal with that situation rapidly. The only answer is India or may be Russia. So India is convincing Europe now and US will be automatically in basket.
TRUE TO BE TRUE
I am not sure how factually correct this is but I was under the impression that India though dropped the US in the Fighter Jet Purchase but has agreed to buy Military Transport Aircrafts Deal worth some $5bn??. If this is true then the US didn't really lose everything and would have won some business. I think in India still lies this mistrut of the US and thier closenes with Pakistan does not help either. India has not been happy with the defence freebees that Pakistan is being handed by the US for under the pretext of war in Terror which they are deploying against India. Also remember US did Sanction India when India went Nuclear which really created an significant operational issues for the Indian Armed forces this will not be forgotten easily in India. Though low there is still this risk that the Indians must consider if Sanctioned again the 10 bn jets from the US could become as good as boat anchors.
It is clear that Fareed is running for Secy State. Kissinger is lobbying for him.
I don't think I agree with Fareed's conclusion that India's decision to align herself to USSR earlier was wrong. The conclusion is debatable at best and ludicrous at worst. Even if it is assumed wrong for the sake of argument, just because India committed a bad error in judgment in the past does not mean her strategists are wrong every single time. (Are you going to assume every decision made by Obama wrong just because Bush made some colossal mistakes? )
I don't know why India chose to go with Europe but it could be to express her dissatisfaction over the fact that India has not enjoyed an unequivocal support from the US in her war on terrorism .
If USA would have offered F22 jets, Indians would not have rejected that offer. The offer was for F18 jets which were the world's best less than 10 years ago. Not sure if F18 is still considered the world's best today, but F22 certainly is.
so right
We, the U. S., should end all foreign aid to Pakistan and India. Depending on what you read this is easily $3 billion per year. Let's instead give the money to American Indians, or Native Americans if you prefer, for economic development projects and also for schools, roads, bridges and general infrastructure in our country. All wars are economic at the roots. Perhaps then India and Pakistan could make the world a better place by destroying each other.
I completely agree. We should stop the printing presses that churn out fake money and get out of the false "aiding business". It does no good to anyone. We need to earn real money the hard way – by improving exports that are more desirable. We are currently busy raising our debt ceilings so that we can go more in debt to spread false prosperity all around the world.
Also ... change policies to stop creating and supporting dictators to fight wars with them once they get out of control.
India's decision to allie steadfastly with the Soviet Union ......... Do you remember Nixon sending seventh fleet to bomb India and pushing india towards USSR?
BTW, I do believe India's foreign policy are 'catalog of mistakes'
This is very poorly done article. These US fighter do not fit with what they are working on in joint development with Russia. I would have been shocked to see them buy these fighters. The only jets the USA has that would cause them to buy into USA fighters for their airforce is the F22. That is plane that the USA will sell to no one. A version of the Sukhoi T-50 is the future jet of India. So only F22 would be in their strategic interest. Besides, why would India buy a plane that is outdated for fighting a possible war?
I don't agree with Zakaria..
India had a lot of support mostly technological from Soviet Union instead of United States but its foreign policy has always been – non-alignment with any superpower. US lost a lot of business to Soviets and had suspicion about India's motive to back the Soviets. This led US to support/arm the Pakistan, which we now know is a bad decision. Even with all this support from US Pakistan might end up a banana republic while India even after seeking technology from Soviets over US is still a flourishing democracy.
I agree with Fareed. India may have made a right decision pricewise, but has made a blunder strategically.
I agree with most of the points made by Rahul previously, I would also like to add that the American fighters had the following points working against them:
F16 has been operated by Pakistan for almost 30 years, and PAF therefore has a lot of experience in flying the type (not withstanding the block type of the F16), that point alone in my opinion disqualifies it, therefore I will not go into the technical shortcomings.
Now some of the main short comings of the F/A-18 I believe were:
1 It was the heaviest fighter in the competition at 32,000lbs, this puts it close to a heavy fighter. This role in the IAF is performed by the Su30MKI and as such there is no need to have 2 such fighters in the IAF. I believe that in the alpha strike pattern envisioned by the IAF the MRCA plays the air dominance and ground defence suppression role and the SU30MKI plays the bomb truck role. The F18 is one of the best ground attack fighters in the world but it does do so by sacrificing some of its air-to-air capability. This would not mean much in the USN/ NATO where almost all a2a combat occurs beyond visual range (BVR), but in the IAF this is not always the case (IMO mainly because of the cost of the BVR munitions).
2 Despite having the only working AESA the Raytheon APG-79 (one of the core requirements in the RFP) there was significant disquiet in the IAF regarding the unwillingness of U.S to provide the source codes for the same. This means that the mission parameters for the radar are set by Boeing, and any time that the IAF wants to set new mission parameters it has to go through Boeing, this will enable the U.S to indirectly restrict the mission of the F-18.
3 According to reports the F-18 was unable to restart after engine shut down at IAF Leh, and the ability to operate from high altitude Himalayan bases was one of the primary performance requirements for the aircraft.
4 The F18 is a formidable aircraft but it is soon going to be phased out of USN and RAAF service with the induction of the F-35 (and unlike some comments here I am under no misconception that it will be offered for sale to India anytime soon), IAF needs the MRCA comp winner to be its medium combat aircraft for the next 30+ years, I believe that the Euro canards by virtue of their newer designs and airframes are the better options. I also believe that the Rafale is the better multi-role fighter as the tranche 3 multirole Eurofighter is not yet ready.
One other point I would like to add as I believe it has not been made before on this forum. We owe it to our pilots to get the best aircraft available for our money, political considerations not-withstanding. These are the people who have to fly these planes into war, not Farid or any of the other commentators here. I believe that for a change the Indian government has done well not to let political considerations intrude into this procurement process.
Completely Agree with Fareed here. India biggest issue is Pakistan. India is not able to take Military action against Pakistan. Currently US does not care about relations between Pakistan and India. They are supporting Pakistan for their own benefits. So why not India takes the help of USA by making Business + Defence Deals and LEVERAGE these deals to CONTROL Pakistan ==>> This is the Key because if any Country can control Pakistan currently, it is USA, NOT Russia. Whether US is correct in sending Aid to Pakistan or not, get them to support India in some way and then maybe Aid may also be monitored by US => This is where INDIAN LEADERS NEED TO PLAY THE POLITICS. Also China is another BIG threat and with US Support they will not move a inch inside India (US is probably their biggest Trade Partner). Indian Politicians need to evaluate things again keeping in mind =>> Life is not Black and White => Play the Grey Zone well !!!
Dear
Fareed
I am really disappointed with your reporting on the MMRCA deal. Your are a jounalist whose job is to present the facts as they are, and not take sides. But the comments in your article resemble as if you have been paid for by Lockheed Martin or Boeing PR departments to flay India's decision to leave out these 2 companies. Before writing this article you should have gleaned through the debriefs given by IAF to the losers including the 2 US companies why they were not selected.
Honestly do you feel supplying 2 planes that are 25 and 40 old and have come to end of development lifecycle are of any worth when IAF wants planes it can fly for next 30-40 years and F-16 deployed in Pakistan. Add to that CISMOA and other bindings including End User Agreement, which IAF has vehemently opposed are any good for the deal. IAF is going for C-17 and C-130 without essential systems but these wont br doing dogfights or fire missles. So IAF needed planes that have scope of development and dont have bindings attached them.
India and USA both need each other, but USA needs more of India as Indian defence contracts will help USA employ more people in defense industry the largest employer in the USA. After death of OBL and distrust growing with Pakistan
now USA needs more of Indias help.
Please be impartial in your assessments and dont stoop low to be referred as lobbyist of a company.
Indians do want a deal but most probably %dealings among politicians and officials in India didn't workout!! I guess they couldn't bank like Bofors you remember!!!
I am a Pakistani and it was a mistake for Pakistan to support U.S. in the Cold War. Now the U.S. is destroying our country. Dont make the same mistake India. Stick with your traditional ally Russia. Russia is much more reliable than U.S. It was the mistake of Liaqat Ali Khan, the first prime minister of Pakistan that he avoided Soviet Union's invitation and ran to the United States.
I thought that the "free world" encouraged free competition. Zakaria is annoyed that India wasn't corrupt enough to buy American for political gain and suggests that America is also disappointed for this reason. Sad.
For the record, if you are going to post, you ought to at least use something close to a real name.
I have been a part of advanced aircraft sales for over 20 years and a military pilot for 15. America is fully capable of being a bad sport and often not producing the best equipment, but in this case, that just is not true. The Super Hornet and Super Viper are both great aircraft. I personally would have to go with the Super Hornet, as it has a much greater range and I like the increased weapons carrying capability when I look at the Indian strategic situation. This may also be a rational for Eurofighter.
But the EASA radar on the hornet is just the best there is these days. Not the best of yesterday's technology tomorrow that we see consistently out of large European consortiums. As for the Rafael, you wont believe that it is not really a digital jet, but it is not.
Yes, the same people who decided India's foreign policy 30 years ago are still at it, apparently they don't hire new people and the old one's don't age! Nonsense!
The guys who decided not to accept the bids of the American companies mentioned above, were on leave when India entered into deals worth $10 bn (creating 54,000 American jobs) when Obama came to India in November 2010. Right?
Its time to stop being naive and thinking that America needs India more than India needs America. I'd say both countries need each other the same, and in the long run, its going to be America that needs India more than India needs America. Why? Because India is the second-fastest growing major economy in the world and the largest democracy. America's unemployed can be put back to work by producing goods that would enter the massive Indian market. America's economy is currently a little more than 10 times the size of the Indian economy. But consider that America is growing at about 1% and India at 8.5%! Within 30 years, the economies would be at par!
It's America who needs India to counter China just as much as India needs America for the same. Its mutually beneficial and not like America is being "nice" to India.
Another factor that is being ignored is that there are technical criteria on which the jets are evaluated. Being strategic also involves choosing the weapons that serve you best. If the Americans wanted the contract so bad, they should have made better jets....the Europeans far outstripped them apparently.
This article is nothing but a load of tosh!
Mr Zakaria, with all due respect, I think you are doing are not giving any credence to the rationale behind the deal. It is clear that the driving force behind your argument is the proposed "goodwill" that may be generated between the US and India. I disagree completely. 1. The US economy being $15 trillion worth; a $10billion deal will not buy an earth-shattering amount of goodwill. 2.There are enough accounts for arms and arms related deals between the two nations, not all deals can be expected to go the same bidder; 3. Even the US is aware that the fighters under question, are being phased out, a deal of such nature would not be acceptable to the Indian public which has already suffered from downgraded and phased Russian jets; resulting in the loss of life for many Indian Air Force pilots 4. The deal was not nearly as comprehensive as the other deals, specifically for the Eurofighter, the US did not "bend over backwards" because they simply did not provide Transfer of Technology (ToT) to the IAF, a key element in any arms deal. 5. The LHMF16/ Boeing F/A18's did not meet the performance benchmarks of the two shortlisted aircraft. 6. India's strategic interests lie in clear distinctive non-aligned autonomy. The US's interests are better served with India as an autonomous state. India's foreign policy has been very clear and much more transparent than most other nations over the past 3 decades, including and specifically the US.
I see no merit in your argument sir, and assure you, neither does the Indian populace. It is best that this paultry $10bn deal not be left over analyzed. At the end of the day, Indian money and the Indian Air Force serve one single purpose, safeguarding the interests of the Indian republic. Lets not get carried away with notions of buying goodwill and strategic alignment of allies.
Lots of good points, but the fact is you don't just buy the airplane. You buy the U.S. Air Force and or the U.S. Navy relationship. The Russians build big airplanes and have big missiles, are still pretty much directed to the target and have little to no flexibility in their operations. In this case, you rely on numbers, pure and simple.
With Pakistan sporting advanced F-16s and the entire region desperate for India to start taking their rightful place as leaders in political stability and regional relationship building; the European choice seems to be a compromise. Again, we can be disappointed as the Indians decide to chose a compromise that certainly carries the perks the senior political and military officials are used to.
If the Indians bought the F-18 E/F they would find themselves with independent thinking fighter pilots who had the ability to engage in a strategic sense. Both air to air and air to ground. We would want that now would we??????
India needs to figure out when it wants to become a country and not a collection of regional monarchs. Proud and educated, I would love to see things start to work in that region. It takes more than call centers and software houses to be a regional or world power.
I am assuming you wandered and have replied to the wrong post, coz from your reply it seems that you neither have knowledge about the US or India, let alone this defence deal we are discussing.
Mr. Zakaria,
You are one of the few opinion journalists who does not make emotional responses to world events, even when they strike close to home. However, in this issue, there are a lot of facts that have not been mentioned in the debate.
First, India after independance was trying to build a relatively independant market from the few resources it had. The result of that reconstruction caused India to be highly protective of it's markets till the 1990's, when the Indian economic policy changed, and India welcomed foreign companies to compete with indeginous companies. Thereconstruction helped India to actually be independant in terms of manufacturing and allowed it to create a stable foundation for the present Indian economy, which now moves at almost 9% GDP growth, making it the fastest growing and larget democracy (populationwise) of the World. I , ofcourse, don't need to remind you of it, you already know about all of this. But I do not know if you know the following.
1) We initially went to the US to ask for nuclear material, since we had non. The US refused to release any material to us unless we pledged our alleigence to them. The last thing India wanted to do was to be under the power of a foriegn nation and for this reason, India refused. The Soviet Union, seeing we refused, offered us the material, with no strings attached. That act allowd us to garner a special frienship between India and the former USSR. While it is true that the USSR collapsed, you cannot deny that the friendship was productive and permanent. Even today, India maintains a very close relationship with Russia without being it's pawn. The two countries in collabration produced the BrahMos missile, the fastest cruise missile of the world to date. No such collaboration took place between Pakistan and the US. Russia is also assissting India in the production of it's second lunar satellite ,specifically with it's lunar rover.
2) IN the case of the aircraft, the aircraft did not meet the criteria that the Ministry of Deense had placed on the fighters, hence it was rejected. As for technology from Russia, that fact is not entirely true. In the Present, Israel is the primary supplioer of military machinary to India followed by the United States and Russia. We also produce some of our own tanks, missiles and weapons, and what has been purchased by the Indian Government has not yet broken down in the battlefield.
I hence ask you sir, if you wish, check these facts and you will see that India does not make irrational decisions about it's defense.
I have to say Mr Zakaria's views are perplexing. First of all, he dusts off India's foreign policy decisions which are decades old and compares them to India's decisions in this new world, where India is a real power. That is, as he would put it, nonsense! The decisions India took with China in the 50s etc... were wrong and not pragmatic, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. In terms of the Soviet Union, India has no other choice, the U.S.S.R was an ally who could be trusted more than U.S.
Now coming to the decision of these 126 jets. There are a few points I would like to make –
1. The F16 and F18, are not good enough – they did not pass the IAF's test. The technical recommendations could be ignored if India were 10 or 20 jets, but India could potentially have 200 and these jets would form the backbone of the IAF for the next 4 decades! That has far more strategic value than just losing a few brownie points with U.S over the short term. The Rafale and Typhoon are simply better!
2. His statement that the U.S bent over backwards to 'give' India these jets are far from the truth. Its the Europeans who exhibited that kind of eagerness. The U.S tried to pressure India into signing various technical agreements etc... which would have curtailed India's independence in these matters. Whereas the Europeans posed no such difficulties and were more than willing to appease India. This was a grave mistake on the part of the U.S, as it simply did not recognize the position India holds in the world today! It needs to realize that the U.S 'needs' India to counter China and to stabilize South Asia!
3. In terms of India's strategic relationship with the U.S, losing these 126 jets, would not be more than just a hiccup. The fact is that, as opposed to what Fareed said, U.S needs India as much as India needs the U.S. China has become a real problem for both countries and they need each other to counter China (in this case India needs the U.S more) and the U.S desperately needs India to stabilize Af-Pak region. So strategically, I am not sure if it was wise for Fareed to say that India was not thinking – it just showed that the U.S needs to look at India as an equal partner.
Factual points aside, Fareed, I would like to question your geopolitical / goodwill argument on two levels:
a) If you were an Indian strategic planner, how much of goodwill do you think India could generate by purchasing $10 billion worth of airplanes? Goodwill enough to make the US re-think of subsidizing the Pakistan military?
b) If not, How much of such "goodwill" do you think India needs to generate for the US to reciprocate?
Fareed, Why do you think that the Indian decision to go with European manufacturers over Americans is a strategic one or motivated by some kind of pretense of strategic thinking? It could very well be a matter of low bidding by Europeans, maybe some kick-backs for the Indian decision-makers forthcoming from the Europeans and maybe, could be driven by technical merits of the European aircrafts over the American ones?
Your article sounds more like pandering to the American interests without having any factual information about why the decisions were made in favor of the Europeans. Should India align with US just because US is the biggest economy in the world? There is no guarantee that US will support India over its security challenges even if the deal was handed to the Americans. US has done nothing to curb and terminate terrorist support infrastructure in Pakistan in all these years despite having all the evidence.
Indian decision is based on its national interest and US should not feel slighted and get touchy-feely on being rejected in this economic defense deal.
Fareed
I am American and I sincerely hope things turn around for the US economically, technologically and socially. But you should know better than to make the US out like the cats whiskers. It is abundantly clear that the US has messed up in many areas and continues to do so, then why this attitude of we are still the best.
Highest in medical spending- ranked 38th in health care
Not even in close for school education.
Losing higher education ranking.
Social divide gap widening.
Complete disconnect between wall street and main street and continue to let the banks get away with giving Billions of dollars in bonuses.
etc etc......
India aligning with the USSR was a direct result of no support from the US for the 1962 conflict against China when the then PM pleaded with the US for assistance. Letters pleading for this assistance are still classified but may be found in the JFK library in Washington.
Fareed
Your article lacks factual information and I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you on this. Do you know that Nixon instigated China in making co-ordinated military moves in support of Pakistan? During the India Pakistan war, USS enterprise was deployed near the bay of Bengal? It was the Soviets who came to our rescue.
We were never on the wrong side during the cold war; we were very much third-world and we enjoyed Russia's unconditional support.
Our strategic planners are correct esp. since the US wants us to buy their soon to be phased out, obsolete military hardware without a ToT.
Fareed Zakaria doesn't know what he is talking about. The reason India picked the Soviet side is because the United States overtly backed Pakistan during the Cold War. The US has almost always backed Pakistan as its number 1 ally in South Asia. The 1971 India- Pakistan war is the perfect example. Indira Gandhi went to see Nixon first who ridiculed her. Furthermore, the US went on to back Pakistan in the war, even sending a carrier group to the Indian Ocean, despite Pakistan's blatant violations of human rights in Bangladesh. It is only after these events that India was forced to turn to the Soviet Union for help in this conflict. I think the decision to buy European jets is the right one. The US is selling the same military technology to Pakistan. Why would India want the exact same technology as one of its most bitter rivals? Furthermore, the Eurofighter and Dassault jets are newer than the F18 Super Hornet of the 90s.
americans are too clever mr zakaraia. look how they fool paskitani in abbottabad mission by jamming their radars given to them by usa.firstly, usa has denied india the transfer of critical technologies and during war period it is of critical importance. we are worried about both paksitan and china but india is a very astute judje of its situation we have the best russian know and how although they need money which india wil provide we have close collobration with israel and france both have cutting edge technology. we are buying the best to aniihilate bleedi pakis and china
Well there are certainly alot of diffrent and valid thoughts on this issue; and some that do not qualify as thoughts;)
Anyways the U.S. WILL NEVER sever ties with India over 10B dollars. That being said we are no more closer to world peace than we were yesterday, and the sad truth is that the only time we are closest to world peace is when we are in world war. It was a bad deal for India, and this post makes America sound like a cheap prostitute; 10B for U.S love? Over India and the USSR issue, well the wall was broken down in 1989 how about we all move on with life? There are only two truths to this.
1. The states will not cut India out because of past desicions, or over 10B because the fact is that India is still buying in Europe which is still close ties with the states.
2. China and the states would never go to war. They are too scared of eachother.
-And remember the Empire always wins!
The facts are straight and simple:
1. India was colonized and ruled by Mughals and Europeans for 750 years in total in their Indian history.
2. So, Indians are colonized residue today after such prolonged colonization (another way, India is a base-less confused islamised-westernized hybrid nation).
3. India will become an economic (and possibly political virtual colony) of USA in near future. The process is started.
4. Re-colonization of India by USA will be supported by Indians because they have long shameful colonial-history.
5. getting colonized is not a shame for Indians because, they do not have that concept of self-respect (because of their history).
6. The benefit for USA will be to capture natural resources of India, its vast market and also the cheap-labour for the benefit of USA.
7. China will object to it and will ask its share of India.
8. Hence, USA and China will be required to come to a mutual agreement to share and colonize India for mutual benefits in future.
Joining hands with USA is like committing suicide for India. After living in the us for sometime, these are my observations.
1) us economy is going to the dogs. Their economy is built mainly on debt and borrowed money. Now US is facing massive unemployment because they cannot borrow any more money.
2) They need countries like India to buy american products to support job creation in the us. If you read about Obama´s visit, you will see about 50,000 jobs created in usa because of India, but nothing of similar benefit exists for India.
3) F16-F18 planes are old and obsolete. India and Russia are jointly developing 5th generation planes. Russia needs India as much as India needs Russia. Both have helped each other in times of their need. Calling Russian technology not as good as the americans is nonsense. Russian airplanes are far more superior compared to american planes. A simple example is the ¨cheap¨ Ak 47 which is all it took for the taliban to fight against us invasion.
4) usa does everything for two reasons only. Create more jobs back home and oil. If you are living in the usa, you can see how americans waste natural resources. Oil prices go above 4$ a gallon and people start shouting. That is why usa needs oil from iraq, destabilize gaddafi government who was the main person credited with removing usa/uk monopoly on oil.
5) I honestly think the world would be a far better place if all countries followed policies that was beneficial to its own population than just support usa blindly.
–
The fundamental fact is India needs the United States more than the United States needs India. The U.S. economy is $15 trillion; I think it will survive the loss of this $10 billion deal!
–
Above perception is wrong. Economy of US, EU is overdependent on China and US is feeling the heat. Whether US helps or not India will compete-fight with China. It is question of India survival. US is not in a position to contain China without help from India . So USA needs India as much India needs USA. India will be a guarantor of peace in India Ocean. Its might is growing.
sdg
ksmgkjh
Thought-provoking articles are few and far between from what I've been reading as of late. You have a real gem here. It has really created a lot of thought in me and I thank you.
Thanks for your short article. I would like to say that the health insurance dealer also works well with the benefit of coordinators of a group insurance cover. The health insurance broker is given a long list of benefits looked for by somebody or a group coordinator. What a broker can is seek out individuals or coordinators which best match those requirements. Then he reveals his advice and if each party agree, the broker formulates a contract between the two parties.