Addressing the closed-door army commanders' conference, India's Defense Minister A.K. Antony said: "There is need for Indian armed forces to constantly develop their capabilities to achieve minimum credible deterrence against China". He promised all support to the armed forces for the necessary measures to tackle any emerging threats. India's concern over China's growing military might and strategic partnership with Pakistan is not new, as India considers both these countries impediment to her hegemonic designs in the region.

The Indians had expressed serious concern over Pakistan's handing over the administrative control of Gwadar Port, and feared that China might get access to the strategically important Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, and even extend its military clout to these waters by using this port as a naval base. Both Pakistan and China has made it clear that this port is commercial and would not be used for military purposes.

India should understand that it is within each and every nation's sovereign right to develop its ports and give their management and control to any country it deems appropriate.
Did India care about some regional countries' concerns and apprehensions over Indo-US Strategic Partnership, which they considered a threat to their security and strategic interests? Anyhow, Pakistan is not obliged to consider concerns of India or any other state for that matter, especially when India is not willing to resolve disputes including the core issue of Kashmir with Pakistan. India's intransigence is too well known, as it has border dispute with China. Like Pakistan and Nepal, Bangladesh has dispute with India over river waters, because India has chosen to use river waters as a lever to force other countries to acquiesce to it. It was because of India's intransigence that SAARC has remained a non-starter for decades and could not realize its potential. After signing civil-nuclear agreement with the US, India is on a shopping spree with more than $100 billion in hand, and entering into defence deals with developed countries. Nuclear Suppliers Group's countries are selling also nuclear-related materials and equipment to India.
In December 2009, India had intentionally leaked the information that it was working on a new doctrine and preparing for a possible `two-front war' with China and Pakistan. Reportedly, Indian Army was revising its five-year-old doctrine to effectively meet the challenges of war with China and Pakistan, deal with asymmetric and fourth-generation warfare, and enhance strategic reach and joint operations with IAF and Navy. Former Army chief general Kapoor had then said: "The armed forces have to substantially enhance their strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities to protect India's geo-political interests stretching from Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait". This amply proves India's designs. Disregarding the needs of 400 millions people living below the poverty line, Indian government is diverting a very large part of its resources to become a regional and world power. If India could resolve its disputes with its neighbors, and instead of forging strategic relations with the US and the West it focuses on strong relations with its neighbors, the stage can be set for establishing Asian Union on the pattern of EU.

In India, no matter who is at the helm of affairs, policy of intimidating its neighbors, interference in their internal affairs and extending hegemony over them continues. According to Hindu daily's recent report, a war of words has erupted between Sri Lanka and India after New Delhi sought a human rights probe into the last 100 days of the island nation's 2009 military campaign against Tamil separatists, and Colombo accused its neighbor of actually starting the ethnic standoff in the 1980s by sowing terrorism in Jaffna. During military campaign, Manmohan Singh had expressed concerns about Tamils in Sri Lankia, and asked the Sri Lankan government to ensure uninterrupted relief supplies to internally displaced persons. He had also reiterated that there was no military solution to the conflict, and urged the President to start a political process for a peacefully negotiated political settlement with them.

Tamil-Nado government in Indian province might have expressed concern over displacement of Tamils in Sri Lanka in the wake of war between LTTE and Sri Lanka and exerted pressure on its coalition partners in the central government to take up the matter with Sri Lankan government. But it is tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. In the past, during crisis in Nepal Indian government and human rights activists had demanded of the SAARC members to dissuade former king from pursuing the Maoist insurgency, though earlier India had fueled the conflict by clandestinely supporting Maoists. A renowned Delhi-based human rights activist and a columnist Praful Bidwai in his article "SAARC and the Nepal coup" had then stated: "The Maoists use questionable, indeed, deplorable methods but they are not terrorists. All South Asian governments must encourage reconciliation through a dialogue with the opposition including the Maoists."

Such human rights activists should be asked as to why they do not tell India that Kashmiris are not terrorists, and they want implementation of the right of self-determination, which has been acknowledged by the United Nations Security Council. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) in their December 2004 meeting had observed: "In the light of the growing civil war in the country (India), the United Progressive Alliance government, headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh has been exhibiting its expansionist fangs against the people of Nepal right from the day it came to power, and turn Nepal as another Vassal of India similar to Bhutan". These facts are well documented and published in the international press, and expose Indian leadership's hegemonic designs. India continues with its intransigence and is not inclined to resolve disputes with its neighbors, and continues intimidating its neighbors through various means such as extending support to rebels or the oppositions of member countries of the SAARC. This gross interference in the SAARC countries is the reason that the organization has remained non-starter.

In India, no matter who is at the helm of affairs, policy of intimidating its neighbors, interference in their internal affairs and extending hegemony over them continues. According to Hindu daily's recent report, a war of words has erupted between Sri Lanka and India after New Delhi sought a human rights probe into the last 100 days of the island nation's 2009 military campaign against Tamil separatists, and Colombo accused its neighbor of actually starting the ethnic standoff in the 1980s by sowing terrorism in Jaffna. During military campaign, Manmohan Singh had expressed concerns about Tamils in Sri Lankia, and asked the Sri Lankan government to ensure uninterrupted relief supplies to internally displaced persons. He had also reiterated that there was no military solution to the conflict, and urged the President to start a political process for a peacefully negotiated political settlement with them. Tamil-Nado government in Indian province might have expressed concern over displacement of Tamils in Sri Lanka in the wake of war between LTTE and Sri Lanka and exerted pressure on its coalition partners in the central government to take up the matter with Sri Lankan government. But it is tantamount to interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. In the past, during crisis in Nepal Indian government and human rights activists had demanded of the SAARC members to dissuade former king from pursuing the Maoist insurgency, though earlier India had fueled the conflict by clandestinely supporting Maoists.


http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/