Poland should stay in its lane. We haven't ever commented anything about their relationship with their neighbours. Yet those guys have the audacity to interfere in our matters. Like what is their problem?
India's Foreign Policy : News, Views and Discussion
- Thread starter Ashwin
- Start date
You did not side with Ukraine and continue to trade with Russians. The Chinese are too big to chide and get into petty squabbles with. Pretty much the gist of it. Watch Polish broadcasters or follow a Polish OSINT channel and you can pretty much get where they are coming from.
Like half of Europe is indirectly still trading with Russia one way or another. Polish FP often overestimate itself. Good to see somebody reminding them "Utna Per Pasariye Jitna Chadar paye". But I never expected their government to act like their people on SM.
The double standards are for all to see. Many NATO commentators themselves keep quiet when it comes to trade with the Russian Federation. He is venting because he thought he could vent. Many were not expecting New Delhi to respond in kind (in terms of diplomatic talk). The MEA babus showed some mettle. Good for them.
Agreed. My guess is aside from the genuine growth in our geopolitical stature, the current geopolitical conditions did played a role here. Europe is currently mostly on its own with members divided across interests. So, it made sense to act a bit bold.
Welcome to the FAFO place called the real world. Many such people are in for a rude awakening. Also, this moron thinks Pakistan will be a better partner. I hope the babus keep his behaviour in mind when comes to making deals with the present Polish govt.
They are spending money around and happen to hate the Russians with a passion. Ignore these imps. All they can do is bounce around. Everybody and their mothers know who are the folks who matter in EU.
Why is RSS and retired former Chief of Army want dialogue with Pakistan? USA Pressure?
WTF is this? Aman ka Tamasha once more?
organiser.org
Wars are born out of greed, arrogance and commercial interests, not just territorial conflict: Dattatreya Hosabale ......
www.thehindu.com
@vstol Jockey Sir ji, what is this going on?
www.deccanherald.com
Did he got his software update in USA?
WTF is this? Aman ka Tamasha once more?
Wars stem from greed and arrogance: Dattatreya Hosabale
Wars are born out of greed, arrogance and commercial interests, not just territorial conflict: Dattatreya Hosabale
Ex-Army chief Naravane backs RSS leader's remarks on dialogue with Pakistan
Ex-Army Chief Naravane supports RSS leader's call for dialogue with Pakistan, emphasizing the importance of people-to-people connections.
Ex-Army chief Naravane backs RSS leader's remarks on dialogue with Pakistan
@vstol Jockey Sir ji, what is this going on?
Seems Dattatreya Hosabale's recent US trip impacted him as well as RSS: Congress's dig over Pakistan remarks
Dattatreya Hosabale: Congress critiques RSS leader Hosabale over controversial Pakistan dialogue comments post-US trip. RSS aims to reshape Western perceptions, while Rahul Gandhi challenges their nationalism claims. Mixed BJP-RSS response unfolds.
www.deccanherald.com
Did he got his software update in USA?
India must uphold water-sharing treaty with Pakistan, international court says
AMSTERDAM, Aug 31 (Reuters) - India must uphold a water-sharing treaty with Pakistan it suspended amid bilateral tensions and must limit work on an hydroelectric plant it is building in the Kashmir region, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague said on Monday.
India in April last year suspended the treaty that ensures water supply to 80% of Pakistani farms, after India identified as Pakistani two of three assailants in an attack that killed 26 people at a tourist destination in Kashmir that month.
Islamabad denied any role in the attack and took legal action after India last year also began work to boost reservoir holding capacity at two hydroelectric projects in the Kashmir region.
This was seen as a first tangible step by India to operate outside agreements covered by the Indus Waters Treaty between the two countries, which both have honoured since 1960 despite three wars and several other conflicts between them.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration said the Indus Water Treaty remained fully in force, as India had no justification for ending or suspending the agreement.
"India must observe its obligations under the Treaty, including those relating to the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers," the intergovernmental court said.
India, which is officially a member of the court, said it did not recognise the court and "categorically" rejected the verdict.
"This so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India's sovereign decisions," India's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
"Its pronouncements, now or in the future, will have no effect on India's actions in connection with the projects being undertaken by India."
The court said a neutral expert, appointed by the World Bank, would judge by July 2027 whether the construction of hydroelectric plants in the Himalayan region was in line with the treaty.
Agreeing with a demand by Pakistan, the court said India was not allowed to build the dam wall and power intake structure at the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant above certain levels until 90 days after the neutral expert's decision.
------------------------
Source: Reuters
Reporting by Bart Meijer and Shanima Aniyeri; Editing by Alison Williams and Susan Fenton
AMSTERDAM, Aug 31 (Reuters) - India must uphold a water-sharing treaty with Pakistan it suspended amid bilateral tensions and must limit work on an hydroelectric plant it is building in the Kashmir region, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague said on Monday.
India in April last year suspended the treaty that ensures water supply to 80% of Pakistani farms, after India identified as Pakistani two of three assailants in an attack that killed 26 people at a tourist destination in Kashmir that month.
Islamabad denied any role in the attack and took legal action after India last year also began work to boost reservoir holding capacity at two hydroelectric projects in the Kashmir region.
This was seen as a first tangible step by India to operate outside agreements covered by the Indus Waters Treaty between the two countries, which both have honoured since 1960 despite three wars and several other conflicts between them.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration said the Indus Water Treaty remained fully in force, as India had no justification for ending or suspending the agreement.
"India must observe its obligations under the Treaty, including those relating to the design and operation of its hydro-electric projects on the Western Rivers," the intergovernmental court said.
India, which is officially a member of the court, said it did not recognise the court and "categorically" rejected the verdict.
"This so-called Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pronounce on India's sovereign decisions," India's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
"Its pronouncements, now or in the future, will have no effect on India's actions in connection with the projects being undertaken by India."
The court said a neutral expert, appointed by the World Bank, would judge by July 2027 whether the construction of hydroelectric plants in the Himalayan region was in line with the treaty.
Agreeing with a demand by Pakistan, the court said India was not allowed to build the dam wall and power intake structure at the Ratle Hydro-Electric Plant above certain levels until 90 days after the neutral expert's decision.
------------------------
Source: Reuters
Reporting by Bart Meijer and Shanima Aniyeri; Editing by Alison Williams and Susan Fenton
Could Pakistan not use their new defense pact for this? Point to the ruling, say India is in violation and thus are actively harming Pakistan and start striking hydroelectric projects with the backing of Turks/Saudis (& probably China tbh). They'll be able to claim its a defensive operation to safeguard their national security or whatever.
I don't see this happening. The Saudis are the prime economic movers of this pact. KSA's economy is heavily dependent on oil exports; India is the 2nd largest oil importer on the planet. Backing direct attacks on one of your largest customers is pretty bad for business. Especially when they already have a pretty hostile Iran to deal with.
But as a thought exercise let's say this happens anyway. Let's say Pakistan hits an Indian dam, damaging/destroying the dam. The released water will flow down to Pakistan, drowning/destroying towns & cities. More importantly wiping out a chunk of their crop production. Even without any Indian action, a significant chunk of the Pakistani population would be badly affected by this. India could also press on by releasing large volumes of water from other un-affected dams.
I think it would be fair to assume that a hit on an Indian dam will bring retaliation on Pakistani dams &/or other critical civilian infra like airports, seaports, big highways etc. Net result would be a lot of civilian deaths. They would set our infra back by years, we would set theirs back by decades.
The way I see it, & of course I could be wrong, this pact exists primarily to protect Saudi economic interests. With the SoH under Iranian thumb, KSA needs a safe way to dispatch their crude to global markets. They will be building all sorts of oil pipelines in every direction to reduce their dependence on the SoH. Much like ships at sea, pipelines can also be targeted by Iranian drones & missiles. KSA needs a protection force for this network of pipelines that they are planning. That's where Pak comes in. Turkey is in it to make money from weapons exports & to gain influence. Pakistan is in it to make money & gain some kind of an advantage over India.
These goals are often contradictory. If Turkey gains influence in the Arab/Muslim world, it is often at the expense of KSA. If Pakistan uses this pact against India, KSA instead of gaining security against Iran might end up gaining another enemy.
What is more likely to happen is that Pakistan will continue using proxies to attack India, India will retaliate. Pak will use Chinese & Turkish military hardware against India, while KSA works behind the scenes to get India to cease fire. So, nothing much has changed from our PoV.
Bruh who even cares what they claim, if they strike hydroelectric dams or anything first India will attack no matter what (and under any gov including under Pappu ji if he becomes PM).
Turkey and Saudi and China will say "de-escalate" or "ceasefire " while quietly sending more arms and money to them. India can see through all this, and essentially wont give a flying fck until its objectives are complete. We wont allow naked aggression from Pakistan to go unanswered at any scenario.
Literally I dont understand why the heck many Indians care what Pak or anyone else will say or think in the scenario they attack us first. It won't stop us from retaliating against them.
Saudis and Turks cant directly do anything against India. You're acting sort of like Saudi and Turks are galactic alien powers and that we can't do anything against their pet attack dog Pakistan.
India will never agree to any ceasefire until its military objectives are met. This aint 1965 when our bhookah nanga desh was depending on Western wheat from ships to avoid famine and thus were susceptible for forced ceasefires.
It will take nothing short than the US exercising many many secret and overt levers they have to even make Indian leaders consider ceasefire/no response (this is for the scenario Congress comes because BJP will retaliate 100%). KSA is too weak to pressure India to do anything.
I don't really disagree, I don't think it's likely that others will overtly join some Pakistani adventurism but my broader point is that the rhetoric and pieces for escalation are increasingly there. Now Pakistan can point to an international ruling, characterize Indian water policy as an existential threat, call its response "defensive," and then seek political/material support from its partners.
Whether anyone buys that justification is almost secondary. The main issue being (and this might just be my perception) that India's rivals are more open to conflict and I think any armed conflict itself is undesirable for India right now. India just had a very strong quarter economically, while simultaneously facing expensive oil, inflation/usd pressure and a pretty unstable global commodity environment. Starting another India-Pakistan shooting war, even one India ultimately wins isn't free.
I wouldn't assume destroying some of these dams means Pakistan automatically floods itself and wipes out its agriculture. A lot of the disputed Indian projects are run of the river projects with relatively limited storage. If India actually wanted to weaponize water it'd need more time to actually build out enough storage/diversion capacity on the western rivers to simply turn Pakistan's supply on and off. Pakistani fears of this are why they even ran to the Hague in the first place to try and slow down all the new dam/storage/diversion construction while they arm themselves and plan.
Does the Pakistani establishment even care if their infrastructure gets set back by decades? Wouldn't it be preferable for them even? The Pakistani elites could point to boogie man India damaging their infrastructure in order to continue looting their society for another few decades.
I mostly agree. I just think the Saudi motivation is broader than protecting pipelines specifically.
To me this looks like another Saudi hedge against a less stable region and an uncertain long-term economic/security environment. The diminishing value of oil is going hand in hand with the withdrawal of the US in the region. Basically the Saudis are doing with strategic relationships that they're doing economically. Throwing whatever they can and seeing what sticks.
Turkey gets funding, export markets and influence for its defence industry. Pakistan gets to monetize its military capacity through procurement, investment, forex and potentially debt relief. The Mecca branding is pretty on-the-nose too. Turkey and Pakistan both benefit enormously from the imagery of being central players in some emerging Islamic security architecture, while Saudi Arabia gets to position itself as the state convening it.
So yeah, I don't think this suddenly creates a coherent alliance. It just gives each of them another lever, and Riyadh is probably willing to concede some political space in exchange for greater security. Maybe that means accepting a larger Turkish role in places like Somalia, Sudan or Libya where their interests overlap, rather than trying to compete with Ankara everywhere. Pakistan is even easier. Saudi Arabia can quietly provide money, arms or political support while simultaneously being the guy on the phone demanding a ceasefire whenever Pakistan gets into another crisis with India.
A stronger India could possibly provide Saudi the economic/security assurances it wants. Maybe not some grand formal alliance but at least a sufficiently powerful India could make the pact increasingly irrelevant to Saudi policy toward India.
Last edited:
Broadly agree.
PCA rulings exist against all major countries; India, US, China, Russia etc. They are almost always un-implementable unless both parties agree. International law, as it exists today, is notional at best. The job of implementation of such rulings/law falls upon the involved nations or on toothless international bodies like the UNSC.
Pakistan will always look to initiate a conflict with us & China will always hep them. That is a pretty well-known constraint on India's growth. There isn't much we can do about that.
But if we think India cannot grow due to this constraint, then our thinking about economic growth is wrong. It is a lot like saying you can't score a goal because the opposition has a goalkeeper. A goalkeeper is a constraint that can & will be overcome.
We have to accept that the era of globalization is largely over. Thus, most of our growth will come from domestic demand, not from exports. Exports are an icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Most of our economic policies should be about enhancing & growing the domestic market. That means buying oil from Russia, if needed. Even if that comes at the cost of a trade deal with the US.
This would normally be true if these dams weren't located at the altitudes they are at. Most of these dams are at a significant altitude, even a small sudden release has serious potential ramifications. For example, the Salal dam on the Chenab River, had recently opened some of its gates for a few days. This is due to an unexpected rainfall, also the dams needed to get rid of its silt deposits. This short & sudden release caused a flash flood in the PoK region. Salal is located at ~500 m from MSL, other at higher.
Baseless allegations, says India on Pakistan’s claims of creating a flood-like situation by increasing flow of Chenab
No, they don't care. I agree. This will help their elite. But what does that matter.
In the 60s to 70s, the Pakistani economy was growing faster than ours. The effect of that is that they were able to generate economic/military means domestically to combat India. The wars of 1965 & 71 were the closest consecutive wars we have had with Pakistan. They were able to grow out of the economic losses of 65 war faster.
With the economy now in doldrums that capacity just doesn't exists. The gap of economic, infrastructure & industry is so big that no external help will bring parity.
Think of the many wars/conflicts between India & Pakistan not as separate dispersed acts but a part of a larger omnipresent civilizational conflict. Think of these fights as chapters in the larger book named “Civil war in the Indian Subcontinent”. To outside/casual observers it might seem like a series of cyclical fights that changes nothing, but that is far from true. Every round of fighting ends with India gaining a small, but significant & largely irreversible advantage over Pakistan.
There is no way for Pakistan to re-integrate Bangladesh, bring back Article 370, re-enforce IWT, convince India that their nuke deterrence is sacrosanct etc.
For India it is crucial to remember that this is a civilizational/ideological war. Such conflicts are not won or lost in a single event/war. After every conflict, Pakistan will re-arm & fight us again. Our goal should be to force Pakistan to spend money on re-gaining capabilities rather than gaining new capabilities.
Destroying their infra will force them to re-build infra. This will not bring new economic growth; it will merely restore the pre-conflict condition & take money/resources away from military capabilities.
To take a game theory PoV at this. Nations have intentions & capabilities. Two previous Indian PMs (AVP & Singh) had tried diplomacy of various kinds to change Pakistan's intentions. Even Modi stated off with the same. Now it seems the realization has set into the Indian establishment that no amount of diplomacy will change Pakistan's intentions. So now, India's policy toward Pakistan is all about degrading their capabilities.
Infrastructure, civilian & military, forms an important part of any nation's capabilities. Degrading infra degrades their capabilities. We can't change their intentions anyway, so what does it matter if it helps their elite. Who cares about who is running Pakistan, who cares if they are a democracy or a dictatorship.
There have been many instances in the past when a military/strategic relationship has been offered to India by the KSA. There was an ex-Indian ambassador who said the same.
For better or worse, Delhi has decided to stay out of it.