Finally after 63 years, but wait no .........

.
.
.
.
On the Tits and Bums rag, especially gora tits and bums rag they had this interesting piece of IRONY with the underlying subsequent revelation of Congress mismanagement which I have posted below.

India theoretically is the 4th most powerful nation on earth, and a nuclear power which should automatically guarantee her a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. But hasn't.

Maybe the International bankers based in NY, London, and Zurich don't like India, who knows (Jewish this world materialism vs Indian aestheticism????.....but then again there are plenty of grasping Indians).

Maybe the fact that India is still celebrating the utterly utterly utterly evil British Empire as a member of the Commonwealth in a clappy happy upbeat way, and annually still taking the begging bowl to Paris for foreign aid counts against her joining this exclusive "club"......of the USA, Russia, France, Britain and China.

India has a 1,500,000 army, 200,000 airforce and a navy close to 60,000 personnel unofficially, and can mobilize 3,000,000 men and some woman for war, backed by 4,000,000 million paramilitaries doing the essential rear-guard duties in times of war. The second largest conventional force by numbers in the world.

And clearly both the left and right of Indian politics want India to be recognized as a "Great Power".......lobbying all in sunder about India's case, and are mesmerized when the USA repeatedly takes the SAP for who he is, and promises them to make India into a "great power".

To be a "Great Power" not only is it essential to talk the talk, but you have to walk the walk. There are certain key things which you have to do to turn yourself into a "Great Power"....which becomes an actual REALITY. But not based on the promises of others.

I am not sure what exactly the wisdom of being a "Great Power" is, save for massaging the male ego....but lets indulge it for arguments sake here.

Whats involved?

Unfortunately though the above numbers about Indian military might are impressive on paper, due to the negligence of the political elite and their distrust of the armed forces generally, which almost came to the boil in the mid-seventies between Field Marshal Manekshaw Chief of the Indian army and Indira Gandhi, the politicians generally neglect the armed forces of India based on some vague ill-defined deference to Gandhian philosophy of not over encouraging militarism within India, which might also threaten Indian Democracy at some point as with neighboring Pakistan.

You'll never find Bollywood making a "Pure" war movie without any songs, shorn of any romanticism, that most other nations make without exception.....ditto Indian television.

The USA makes millions of great war movies.

Russia makes many great war movies.

China makes great historical and current war movies.

This little cultural insight alone tells us a lot.

There are many "indicators" of this political negligence of the Indian armed forces, and you don't need a Ph.d in International security to find the reasons.

Take the essential portfolio of Defense within the cabinet......the person is responsible for the current and future protection and defense of the nation, and further responsibility over a million and half servicemen with a budget of $32 billion; not exactly on a par with the ministry of tourism or fisheries you'd think. In the early years Congress preferred to appoint people who loathed the military such as Kishna Menon, and more recently the standard practice by all parties is to choose someone from the minorities, a political none entity, a clown who could be passed off just as easily as a Harijan street sweeper. This tells us a lot about the reality of being a "great power". Are we serious? If you are serious about being a "Great Power", then you have got to appoint the right people into such important portfolio's.....not the likes of George Fernandes or AK Anthony, or Johnny Lever.

"Great Powers" must have basic strategic balance, and the simple ability to defend themselves from other predatory powers in a credible manner. I am not even talking about offensive capability, sending aircraft carriers here there every where, and waving the "Great Power" flag.

India has been tested and came out well against failed state Pakistan (run by the USA) when that nation attacked India in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999 without any Indian provocation. In the case of the East Pakistan war it was a decisive victory. But the Raj Pooonjab Police Force (aka Pakistan military) is worth less than the tati that comes out of my arse.........it is the worst military in the world whose main job description is killing her own citizens, and acts of terrorism against the very same citizens and then blaming it on various Islamic fundamentalist which the Raj Pooonjab Police Force first created, trained, armed, backed, financed, sustains and directs, up to 500,000 since the 1970's. The Raj Pooonjab Police Force has killed 3,000,000 East Pakistanis; 100,000 Baluchis and their work against the Pashtuns is in progress with the direct aid of the USA.

Suffice to say any analysis which exemplifies Indian military prowess and professionalism against such a "unique" foe is useless in the real, "Great Power" world.

But at least we know from such a foe the real action for India is in the mountains.

Up in the mountains of the Himalayas.

Up in the fucking bahuwa aXika.

Ut vahi parvawIya BAg.

India needs credible forces to defend such problem areas: 600,000 military in Kashmir stationed well away from Civilian areas (Civilian problems to be dealt with by Police, CBI and RAW only) 400,000 in Himachal and Uttrakhand. 800,000 In Arunchal Pradesh, 600,000 up the mountains and 200,000 in Assam. You can have 700,000 concentrated in the Punjab, Rajasthan and other parts of India. No point having just two armoured divisions on a par with Pakistan, when the real Indian economy is 8 times bigger than Pakistan's. Why not have 20 armoured divisions with 6,000 tanks to show decisively which nation has the economic and industrial muscle. Psychologically where military people defer to power this will have an important impact. Pakistan will less likely play games with India in the future and will take the country more seriously, or at least think twice......unlike in the past, for example where Musharaf played golf whilst he initiated Kargil with 3 other generals.

Why have 34 divisions only to Pakistan's soon to be 30? What is wrong in having over 150 divisional HQ, with trained staff to man them organized further into 40 corps HQ, 22 army HQ, 10 army groups HQ upon full mobilization and about 5 sector commands.

I am talking about regular forces and not reserves. The Indian army can be officially 2 million, but unofficially 2.5 million with a 1.5 million reserve.

Interesting to see how India fares in a long mass warefare involving years, where logistics, mass production, INFRASTRUCTURE, mobilization of GDP, organizational discipline come into play in a multiple fronted war in the Eastern and Western sector, against a real professional foe. On that level India hasn't been tested so far.

A professional military without a huge reserve will lose a lot of quality experienced men in a REAL long drawn out war, so my preference is to have a large army initially to the tune of 2.5 million which soaks in losses in a two fronted war, and is backed by 1.5 million well trained reserves.

Since the time of the British Raj from where the Indian army gets its military traditions, and not from Tipu Sultan's army, or the Maratha Confederation or the Mughals...........the current military slavishly follow the British model of warefare, even if somewhat outdated. Though to be fair to the Pakistanis Americanization is taking place, and they are finally discarding their British Raj appearance of over 63 years back.......thats what I call tradition.

Without being privy to detailed field manuals on tactics I believe the traditional Indian approach to war is that of the British Raj from the last century pre-1945 which is pin point the enemy, close in on the enemy, bear in numerical superiority on specific points, and give them cold steel in small groups or mass charges. Variation of that was used in Kargil, where Indian losses were 500 to Pakistan's estimated losses of 4,000 irregulars, NLI. Officers lead the charge, and thus they incur heavy losses. That is not a feasible option in a long drawn out two fronted mass war. Any new tactic has to rely on artillery....lots and lots of it, trained for altitude warefare/trajectory.....and strong defensive points of large well supplied independent Brigades which are self sufficient up to a point. The Romantic notions of cold steel charges and Kukri charges, led by officers has to be ditch good and proper.

It would also be appropriate if comprehensive Indianisation of the military took place and it loses its "I say old boy" colonial heritage. It would be nice if cadets in Dehra Dun took their oaths in Hindi or Sanskrit. It is wise that senior officers above the rank of Brigadier should not have taken any military training either in the UK or USA.........Russia is acceptable.

Thus in such a BASIC scenario for such a credible army India needs to manufacture 20,000 Mortars, you know those simple things made of steel tubes with one end blocked off, but the perfect weapon for mountain warefare; 22,000 AA Guns 40--120 mm; 10,000 mountain artillery TOW and SP. India needs to manufacture attack helicopters, and transport helicopters suited for the high altitude ....Russian versions can be plagiarized for starters, they are cheap and easy to manufacture.

If the Indian navy loses an engagement, India does not lose the war, but India may be blockaded, though highly unlikely since a strong LANDBASED airforce can unblock it. Further in the event of a blockade, shipping routes and supplies can be ensured via Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka........contingency plans can be made well in advance.

If the army loses a battle or two, you lose the whole war and much else eventually. Third World countries with limited military budgets must optimize their meager resources and direct them into the right strategy, and not go for over elaborate fancy irrelevant International banker coded military programs. (50,000 crore---6 submarines, North Sea, London.....It is a stretch to imagine even with the best of foreign Western advice that I will be ever bringing a few million hostile forces against India, that of course will never be....I am a teacher)

Diplomacy and the art of diplomacy is a boon. If through mere diplomacy you can achieve lasting peace with neighbors, this is good. It is too be desired and work on constantly.......Europe has matured to the point where save for some parts in the Balkans, peace and good neighborly relations are the norm. But alas as we well know it was not always like that, and Europe throughout history experienced many unnecessary wars through the false illusions and designs of egotistical men.

Weimar Germany and the Soviet Union extensively cooperated on military matters with each other to the point where in places such as Ufa, in the Soviet Union the two countries secretly developed tanks because such technology were denied to both countries....they cooperated on many other levels into 1941. In 1940 the Soviets supplied Germany with extra petrol, grains and other essential raw materials and possibly military hardware for the invasion of France and the attack on the UK in late summer.

The Soviet Union was the greatest military power on earth, but after Stalin executed 80% of the top officers in 1937, the whole military became worthless, and it showed when the Soviet Union had problems defeating the small Finnish army in 1940. This convinced Hitler to attack his much larger foe which eventually finished the Third Reich, but not after the sacrifice of 25---30 million war dead in the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that India must not rely on diplomacy alone to protect itself. Nations you are friendly with nominally can suddenly become unfriendly.........the only insurance and guarantor against such an unfortunate situation is a strong CONVENTIONAL military which everybody understands is powerful and effective. Increase the army to 2.5 million from the current 1.5 million unofficially; the airforce from 200,000 to 300,000. Increase the divisional HQ from the current 34 to 150, with 30 mountain divisions. March them visibly up and down Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Arunchal Pradesh. Conduct mass armored exercises in Rajasthan involving 10 armored divisions.

The COST of all this will be far far far less than when India INVITES yet another open war which may ultimately be very costly as it initially was for the Soviet Union. Stalin and the Communists at least were able to recover to save their country; the Congress Party won't be able to do that.

Not with 39 ordinance factories. As I have said before India needs 200--300 ordinance factories at least based in the North near the action.... West Bengal, Punjab, and Harayana. 2.5% of GDP on defense is again too small and it should be closer to 5%.

Let me repeat that the USA, Russia and China do not buy arms from foreign countries 90---100% of their defense inventory is their own, and this is logical without being a strategic military genius.....it makes sense that in defense you rely on your own manufactured weapons rather than wait anxiously for the spares to arrive on the goodwill of foreign nations and their particular whim for the day.

Yes I know that a lot of people from politicians, to netas, to senior officers to arms middle men make money from kickbacks.....which then go on to the Swiss accounts.........2005......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"...2006......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2007......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"...2008......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2009......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"...2010......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2011......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2012......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2013......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....2014......."Ahem everybody we are going to spend $10 billion on a new jet fighter.....what are your bids?"....Tehelka.....yes its that obvious, but its makes a mockery of Indian defense.......Johnny Lever level mockery.


__________________________________

Draft defence production policy stresses R&D

Rajat Pandit of TOI

The government is finally ready with a spanking new Defence Production Policy (DPP) which seeks to drastically reduce India's overwhelming and strategically-vulnerable dependence on foreign military hardware and software by bolstering indigenous R&D and private sector participation in a major way.

(understatement.......when 70% of your hardware is foreign your military machine is hostage to foreign powers.....ask the Pakistanis in 1965. You then have to make peace on their terms, and their threats.

What's wrong with calling this new defense policy Saatagni Kharkana Nitii.......after the ballistic weapon created in India around 1000 BC, but subsequently banned as unchivalrous...........DPP in the UK means Director of Public Prosecutions......which UK diplomat is guiding and ghost writing such policies?????)

The DPP's final draft, in fact, holds "only those weapon systems/platforms will be procured from abroad which cannot be made/developed within the country" in specified timeframes to meet "critical" operational requirements.

(Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

All such "buy" projects will necessarily include transfer of technology, unless "exceptions are required for specific reasons", to ensure subsequent generations of the weapon systems are developed indigenously.

(Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

With the government now ready to fund domestic private companies with 80% of developmental costs, approval procedures for 'development/integration/make' of new defence systems indigenously are being 'further simplified'.

( By 2050.........hopefully)

The DPP also says priority will be given to develop "strategic and critical technologies" to "reduce vulnerabilities" in case of sanctions and denials.

(meaningless generalizations)

Defence production secretary R K Singh told TOI the objective is to "change the entire dynamics and orientation" of the existing defence procurements and production.

(Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

"We want a strong domestic defence-industrial base to ensure our strategic autonomy is not circumscribed. It will also have an economic multiplier effect by generating jobs here," said Singh.

"The Defence Acquisitions Council (headed by defence minister A K Antony) will now take up the DPP for final approval in its next meeting, or the one after that," he added.

(The clown AK Anthony has the final decision........)

The DPP specifies futuristic weapon systems, required after 7-8 years and beyond, will by and large be developed/integrated within the country after the long-term integrated perspective plans of the armed forces are analysed by sectoral multi-disciplinary indigenisation committees (SMDICs).

(-------Bring in the netas....and more committees........Legaleeze Weasel terms which can be interpreted in a variety of ways...........either you go for 100% domestic production/procurement, like the USA, China or Russia or you don't)

With representatives from the ministry, armed forces, DRDO and others, SMDICs will play "a pro-active role" in organising partnerships between academia and industry.

(Why simplify the whole thing under one command structure when you can include 10 different groups deciding on a project)

For every weapon system to be developed, two Indian companies with the lowest quotes will be selected, with the L-1 (lowest bidder) getting 65% of the order. The second company, or L-2, will get the remaining 35% but on the L-1 price.

But all this will take a lot of doing. The government till now has taken only piecemeal measures to boost private sector participation in the defence production arena, which was largely the public sector's preserve till a decade ago.

(Don't hold you breath.........our policy might take a couple of decades to implement------you understand?)

The defence sector was opened up in 2001-2002 to 100% private investment, with up to 26% foreign direct investment (FDI), but the results so far have not been very encouraging.

(Wonder why?)

Moreover, the abysmal performance of DRDO, eight defence PSUs and 39 ordnance factories has meant India, which fancies itself as an emerging superpower, still imports over 70% of its military requirements.

(Ah no, the problem is not DRDO, its the netas and top military brass setting unrealistic standards of Indian made weaponry.......as if India can suddenly produce topnotch globally standard equipment. And when they fail in a few aspects, opting for the KICKBACK foreign deals for other reasons not related to defense procurement.

The T-34 had multiple problems in production INITIALLY, but these were ironed out after full production had begun in 1940.)

As reported earlier, India has inked arms deals worth a whopping $50 billion since the 1999 Kargil conflict, making it the largest arms importer in the developing world.

(Sad sad sad...........and the later spare parts deal....that's not included)

Acknowledging India's self-reliance index is less than 30%, the DPP says, "Dependence on other countries for defence needs makes the country vulnerable, reduces foreign policy and strategic options and impedes the country's growth as an independent power in its own right."

(You don't suppose Einstein)

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 :

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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?
   http://www.ziopedia.org/en/articles/money%10taxes/%27capitalism_and_freedom%27_unmasked/http://www.ziopedia.org/en/articles/new_world_order/_reviewing_naomi_klein%27s_%27the_shock_doctrine%27/
7. 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.
8. 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.