From: prem@prem.lbl.gov (R. Shirdi Prem)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: THE REAL REASON (Re: US military assistance to Bangladesh)
Date: 15 Nov 1992 23:50:55 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: prem@prem.lbl.gov (R. Shirdi Prem)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.140.191
Keywords: US ditches Pak...... US befriends Bangladesh....... Why???????

	Maybe I did not make my stand clear i my previous posts. I am not
	trying to defend/support/eulogise the Indian position here. From
	the tone of your response, I gather this is the impression I have 
	created. I myself am not very enamoured of the way Indian foreign 
	policy has succeeded in turning off nearly every single one of its 
	neighbours.

In article <484@rook.ukc.ac.uk> az1@ukc.ac.uk (A.Zafar) writes:
>
>	This I have to have a vote on. Do all Indians feel so insecure that
>they feel that not only all it's neighbours but also the US is now trying to
>break it up. 

	It is not a matter of perceived insecurity, but a question of reality.

>had them in the recent past. By keeping such an insecure attitude so as to
>even think that the US is trying to destabilize India, you are only confirming
>what I said earlier (if enough people think like you), that the US may find
>India pestering it (assuming they do not have such intentions).

	huh ?? I didn't get that.....

>	If they wanted to destabilize India, they could have done it from
>Pakistan. The CIA and ISI have very strong links and know how to deal with
>each other. Pakistan has the hardware and with US assistance can do much more
>damage to India then it will be able to from Bangladesh. Incidentally, ISI is
>regarded by CIA as one of the most advance in the 3rd world.

	In my original article, I touched upon why the US finds it opportune 
	to distance itself from Pakistan. In all likelihood, the CIA will
	continue its links with the ISI. The other reason for the US to court
	Bangladesh is because of Bangla's proximity to the North-East, which
	offers new, fertile grounds for troublemaking.

>	This may or may not be true. It may be easy to exploit if there were
>no other economic powers around. If India is in several pieces, they will all
>have their own policies and it will be a more difficult for them to be kept in
>check. A divided India will be divided because of differences and it will be
>very difficult for US to please one without endangering it's relations with
>another. As for a United India, the US can offer it something which no other
>country can and that is military support. In exchange for a more favorable
>trade status compared to the EEC and Japan, it is just what it needs to really
>pull it's economy together. This is how I see things but am open to critisism.

	This will be true if India is open to US advice. To put it more 
	bluntly, this would work if India bent over backwards to please every 
	US whim. This hasn't happened, nor is it very likely with a united 
	India. A divided India will have much less bargaining power with the 
	US and conversely...... The only reason for the US or anyone else to
	take Indian opinion seriously is because of its size.

>	That is because they are easier to manipulate. Again, the US will do
>what is in it's favor. Why shouldn't it?

	Exactly. However, do you think, speaking as an India/Pakistani/Bangla
	that this is in _your_ country's best interest ?? I am not saying that
	the US should turn into a moral example to the rest of the world. That
	won't happen anyway. All I am saying (and this was the point of my 
	original article) is that we should be aware of ulterior motives and 
	not welcome every overtly friendly action without considering the costs.

>>	The sad part in all this is that even those natives who will support 
>>	such activity will not benefit from it. They will fight for an ideology
>>	be it Islam or Khalsa, and may even succeed in seceding from India,
>>	but it is only the few who will benefit at the cost of the masses.
>
>	This is something hypothetical. Pakistan seperated from India and I do
>not know any Pakistani who has regrets.

	True. But do you think either Indians or Pakistanis gained anything
	from partition ? What I mean is, religious considerations aside, did
	partition benefit either side economically/strategically ?

>>	As things stand, I don't think the sale of sophisticated weaponry
>>	to Bangladesh will seriously affect the balance of power. That will

>will not be able to take over Bangladesh, but it will have a big price to pay
>for it.

	I still think that the actual presence of the US military will make
	a far greater difference than the sale of weapons.

>>	I would have preferred to see the South Asian block to "Mexicize" with
>>	India. That would have been much more productive in reality, rather
>>	than dealing with violence. Of course, the mullahs and their ilk would
>
>	Now this seems to be a very biased view on how India is a good guy

	Hardly. My disclaimer at the beginning of this artile may serve to
	clarify my view on this. Just to delve a little deeper into this
	analogy, I would hardly call the US a good guy in this regard. However,
	Mexico sees it as an opportunity rather than a threat. Of course, the
	fact that they don't have a Hindu-Muslim panga seems to have helped a 
	good deal. The US can undoubtedly overrun Mexico in military combat, 
	but there is little possibility of doing this.

>while all neighbours are being unreasonable. India has been in a position to
>improve ties with all it's neighbours but has failed miserably. India has a

	This is an issue loaded with questions of what it takes to "improve
	ties". What can India do to improve ties with its neighbours ?? I would
	be interested in hearing your solution. Do you mean that India should
	have given Kashmir to Pakistan to improve ties ?? Improving ties is
	a bilateral issue, and it is not something that India can do entirely 
	on its own.
	
>forces. A nuclear Pakistan and India with smaller conventional weapons, will
>make the place a safer and a better place to live. The idea of an army should
>be a deterrent and not to teach someone a lesson. 

	What is an act of defence to one side could be seen as "teaching 
	someone a lesson" by the other side. Your statement also brings up the
	question of how a country should act should it discover that its 
	neighbours are, say, harbouring terrorists. Would that be considered 
	enough provocation to engage in military action ? It is no secret that 
	Sikh terrorists are being supported by some entities (not necessarily 
	the government) in Pakistan. What course of action would you recommend?

>It is up to India to get a
>working relationship with it's neighbours before even THINKING of forming a
>South Asian block.

	True. I agree with that. However, I would state it a little differently.
	It is upto every nation in South Asia to get a working relationship....
	and so on.

>Bangladesh and the US can use each other.

	Yes. But will it remain between these two countries ?? Looking a little
	further ahead (I would say about 3-5 years), I am concerned that this
	will increase US interference in the Indian North-East. Is that 
	something that is of interest to Bangladesh ?? It seems that what you
	are saying is that it is alright for Bangladesh use military support,
	and allow the US to interfere in India's North-Eastern states. You
	may write this off as insecurity on my part, but I still believe that
	this is the _only_ reason for the US to provide military assistance
	to Bangladesh. I find it very difficult to believe that Bangldesh's
	sovereignty and independence are of concern in Arlington or Langley.
	Therefore, the claim that this military assistance is needed to offset
	the threat of an Indian attack is rather hard to believe.

>This is not true. Bangladesh and India have fairly bad relations and I
>am sure that it is not very comforting to think that if they can get any
>worse, India may just walk over them.

	I can understand that. However, I, for one, can reassure you that the 
	last thing on India's mind is to walk over Bangladesh. I have had
	close personal contact with senior members in the external affairs 
	ministry in India, and ever since the inception of Bangladesh, there
	has _NEVER_ been any talk of annexing Bangla territory. My beliefs do
	not a foreign policy make, but this is what I know. The difference with
	Banglas seems to be what India perceives as irresponsible treatment of
	the refugee problem by Bangladesh. There are several ways that the
	foreign ministry in India can solve this problem, but the main 
	stumbling blocks are political, and on both sides of the fence. It is
	a matter of great political benefit to the powers that be in Dacca as 
	well as New Delhi to preserve the status quo. The current situation is 
	a result of that.

>P.S. I am not authorized to post to soc.culture.bangladesh, so it will have to
>be these two groups.

	I have access to s.c.bangla and have been editing the newsgroups line
	to include it. Hope you don't mind.

	Prem!