- You look at the elite of the country, where they go for their holiday, and where they send their children to 'finish' their education, and you KNOW which country controls that country and it's POLICIES (Plural- as in domestic and foreign, and not just one issue.) The elite schools of India are still modelled on the colonial era, designed to produce brown sahibs in Dehra Dun and other places. They need to be got rid of. Too many of the elite's children are sent to schools in the West, and I wonder how many of the lefts children are sent to the West to 'finish' their education. Countries like China and Russia don't send it's future leaders and elites to finish their education abroad.
- Foreign aid compromises the sovereignty of all nations of course. Foreign aid dependency for a prolonged period, harms a country, and that is why first world countries are so eager to provide aid, which is after all is an instrument of state policies of rich countries viz poor countries only since 1950. The foreign aid that is provided rarely benefits a Third World country substantively but are an useful instrument to 'buy' state policies in Third World countries. Are the Communists going on hunger strike over this issue?
- Corruption destroys the sovereignty of a Third World country of course. India is number 83 out of 175 countries, surveyed by Transparency International 2007, a poor record. Money can buy politicians. KGB records show that large number of Indian politicians were in their pay in the 1970's and 1980's, including members of the cabinet. They were acting as foreign agents------treason, but none that I know of were ever prosecuted. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/10/20/stories/2005102000031000.htm Indian politicians are relatively criminalised, hence the poor governance level in the country, and the joke is that people join politics in India to escape the law. Lalooji being the most 'celebrated' example. Does RAW and the CBI have a list of suspected Indian politicians who are working for say, CHINA? Would they like to talk about them?
- Another simple way a countries sovereignty can be compromised is if an 'active' First World power trains a Third World's key bureaucratic and security personnel. A simple example is Pakistan, and it is a failed state. It's leaders keep deferring to outsiders, and they keep getting into bigger messes. 60 years of the same, and they still haven't learnt. The idea to power share between Bhutto and Musharaf came from Washington, and that will prove to be detrimental to both of them, especially Musharaf, but if you are a puppet beholden to them, you follow their orders even if you know that it is wrong.
- NGO's pose a threat to the sovereignty of a country, as they do the work that local governments are suppose to provide. They co-opt vital leadership and direction in sensitive areas. In India where the level of governance is poor, filled with politicians like Lalooji, this represents a pervasive threat to the security of the state. An NGO lobbies the locals that they do do not need that much needed factory which brings in income and jobs to the vicinity. In addition it is well documented that a good deal of NGO's are intelligence fronts of foreign powers. for example in Russia a large number of NGO's were deemed to be interfering with local politics, and were thus expelled.
Moscow names British 'spies' in NGO row Russia Guardian Unlimited http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2006/01/25/71762.html
- The IMF, WB, ADB, international financial markets can pose a threat to the sovereignty of India. What is good for Peter is not necessary good for Paul. We live in a complex nuanced world, and every nation has it's own personality and characteristics. This is not an argument against much needed reform to remove the shackles and heritage of British colonialism or Congress Socialism, but in our eagerness to escape these two past evils, we should not embrace the wrong policies proscribed by people who have very little inside knowledge of the dynamics of India. Never the less did not the IMF 'impose' some Structural Adjustment Programs to 'bailout' India in the early 1990's?
- He who supplies the arms of a Third World country, has a greater influence on the security and foreign policy of that Third World country. This is logical and the norm. Not only are you supplying the arms, but also the spares which can on most occasions be more expensive then the actual initial deal creating long term dependency, and finally you train the locals how to use it. In the past it was the Soviet Union, followed by the UK, and naturally Indian foreign policy was greatly influenced by this fact----UN vote, the political language of the Congress party at that time etc. The left didn't complain then. Since the nineties after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the disappearance of preferential treatment, India now has to pay hard cash for all purchases from Russia, as that 'special relationship' has declined. So India to be really sovereign in security and foreign policy, has to comprehensively develop her own arms industry, and I am surprised that the soon to be third largest economy on earth still can't still manufacture a decent 155mm mountain artillery mass produced for the needs of the army, but talks about space programs, and has to fish around over 10 years looking for foreign sources----------Israel, South Africa and Sweden; just doesn't make sense-----OK, I'm going to avoid the conspiracy/corrupt bureaucrats button. Can't manufacture a proper jet fighter, with only 550 combat jets being operational in service for war. Finally can't manufacture a decent tank after 30 years of trying-----this is a sham and a waste of vital resources, in a nation brimming with technological brilliance and innovation, especially in engineering. A foreign arms supplier can cut off arms supplies and spares at their whim, or do so under pressure from others. Pakistan 1965, nothing was moving in the ground forces after two weeks of fighting, and they have learnt since. Far more serious than the nuclear issue, as that is fully independent operationally now. The conventional arms industry needs to become fully independent, manufacturing sound reliable local equipment, without resorting to round about silly initiatives, which can't help the industry anyway.India has always been technologically innovative. When the university of Nalanda was destroyed in 1297, India was the most advanced nation in many science related disciplines, and students from China, Japan, Korea, Persia, and Arabia use to arrive there and study. Back in 1500 BC India was using the Sathagni, which was a ballistic weapon, loosely translated as 'killer of 100' in large battle fields. It was subsequently banned and never used again based on 'moral' objections from religious groups. India invented the gunpowder, and it's knowledge spread to China via Buddhist monks (as well as the martial arts), and into Europe via Gypsies from 1350 AD. India invented it's own rocket in 1780, the Taagra. Indian canon were some of the finest and best in the world, with unmatched craftsmanship, until the nineteenth century; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaivana_cannon. India was producing fine quality steel weapons well before 2000 years. But now India can't produce simple conventional battlefield weapons. Field artillery, jet fighters, helicopters or tanks. India spends many decades and billions of dollars of research on such systems, but still can't produce simple battlefield conventional weapons. India has plans to send missions to the Moon and Mars but can't yet create effective conventional battlefield weapons like artillery, combat planes and tanks-------one would think that getting the simple things right would be a first priority before reaching for the stars. It's the third largest projected economy on earth, but yet can't produce it's own basic conventional weapons. It exports 35,000 of the best and brightest from the IIT institutes to the USA to help that country, but still can't produce a simple artillery for it's own vital defence. It has close relations with Russia for many years, and yet other non-traditional allies of Russia take advantage of the enormous expertise of Russian scientists to develop their conventional defence industry, such as Iran. Pakistan has partly developed it's own very effective tank which will be massed produced soon, with Ukrainian help. But India unable to produce effective conventional weapons by itself mysteriously isn't going for joint ventures either with Russia thus far, but has belatedly cooperated with Russia, with the Indo-Russian stealth fighter which will be available within a decade. 60 years of good relationship between the Russians and India, and they finally go for a major joint arms production project after so many decades.
What's the problem? Political leaders with wrong priorities? Corrupt bureaucrats who misuse state resources-----a project finishes, and so the funding ends also? Buying expensive weapon systems from other countries gives other countries an effective veto over the military of India-------loss of sovereignty anyone? Now we have the bright idea of using Chinese Singapore, 'the epicentre of scientific excellence in defence related areas' to help India develop and modernise it's arms industry. Perfect. It seems more like inviting China into India through the back door. You give them a base, and they develop your arms industry-----very logical.
- Sorry to sound anti-CHINESE, but you know the security situation in and around India better then I, but with Chinese agents crawling all over Singapore, how does leasing a base to Singapore substantially improve India's security and sovereignty. If it's about technology sharing and improving the performance of the cumbersome Byzantine defence production department then there are more obvious ways of doing it than leasing a base in your country. The quality and quantity of India's defence production has no direct correlation with leasing of a base to Singapore. If it's about getting a closer look at the ageing F-16 which Pakistan operates, then why not just buy a handful from the USA instead? Sounds like more dodgy bureaucrat/politicians wheeling dealing. Does China and Russia have foreign bases in their countries? Singapore isn't a mainstream country either is it? Which is very close to India ( Russia, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, are in many respects much closer ). Singapore is very close to China, (it's an ethnic Chinese statelet/dictatorship, ) Israel and of course the UK. Why would Singapore need a base in India? " In fact, Singapore has been tooting its own horn lately about ever-closer ties to Beijing. Their ambassador to China -- Chin Siat Yoon -- openly bragged that last year Singapore (with a population of only four million or so) was China's largest trading partner among ASEAN countries, was China's seventh largest trading partner and eighth largest foreign investor, has allowed 74 Chinese companies to be listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and allowed some 880,000 Chinese tourists to visit the island-state in 2004. Why, that's almost a million possible Chinese spies that Singaporean authorities willingly permit into their country! Haven't they bothered to read America's famous Cox Commission Report, which a half dozen years ago revealed how Chinese spy agencies secretly employ tourists and students and "cultural exchange officials" and whatever they can get their hands on as spies to suck our national-security innards dry? " It may be sarcastic but it has truth. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21723520-2703,00.htmlChina currently occupies Indian sovereign territory for 40 years, after starting a short undeclared war. China arms failed state Pakistan with nuclear weapons and technology. China backs Naxals and other leftist groups. China builds strategic ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, Burma and other neighbouring countries which will be used to dock Chinese warships------a clear policy of encirclement. The Chinese openly claim Arunchal Pradesh. The Chinese make illegal incursions into Sikkim, India's vassal state. China opposes India's membership of the permanent Security Council seat. China opposes the USA-India Nuclear deal. China captures and humiliates Indian border guards, during a state visit by the Indian political leadership to China. I am not sure what other provocation you require from the Chinese? In the light of China's behaviour in the neighbourhood it is grossly incorrect to give a base to Singapore on Indian soil. I am against an India which has a global reach foreign policy, and interferes with the internal affairs of other nations. Nothing in India's 5,000 years of civilization suggest she ever went beyond her natural boundaries ( Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh being part of this Indian sphere, but not Sri Lanka or Burma ). I am against India acquiring aircraft carriers, which satisfies false ego's of 'Great Power' without adding meaningfully to the basic over all defence of India proper. I am even against India sending UN soldiers to other countries. I want to see a strong India that has a 'defensive' force, and which does not impose it's will on others. Having said that India has to be strong conventionally, and current levels of spending on defence by the Congress-left coalition is too low. India has to protect her basic integrity and territory, as this world is filled with too many rogue nations and actors who can harm the interest of the country. China along this line has been very aggressive towards India, more than any other country, and it's arms to Pakistan as a proxy to prod India time and again against the interest and harmony of the region has done a lot of harm, and will continue to be so. The Indian response to this Chinese aggression has been very weak, which naturally like all wild dogs has encouraged the Chinese to be even more provocative. There comes a time when you have to be a little bit more aggressive, stand your ground and protect your interests, otherwise the mad Chinese dog will walk all over you. Being well meaning, and taking countless visits to Beijing is really not enough. Indian politicians/bureaucrats must do more to protect Indian sovereignty. Forward reinforced concrete bunkers manned by heavily armed well stocked big battalions must be established in Arunchel Pradesh, Sikkim and Kashmir (mini-forts). Then negotiate for settlement.
More on Indian National Security.
If the Communists are really interested in an independent India that is not influenced by foreign powers, perhaps they should focus on more subtle issues which compromise India's independence much more substantively and are not so easily discernible, rather then react in a petty ideological mode on issues that hark back to the politics of the 1960's and 70's. India requires good governance, not petty party politics :