@dhume in FP is correct: non-alignment idiotic; but wrong: US not reliable ally. must get others to align with india!

mar 24th, 2012 CE

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/16/India_nonalignment_2.0_failure?page=0,2 

dhume is quite right about the ghost of nehruvian internationalism, irrationalism, vanity and lack of clarity still ("still crazy after all these years" with apologies to paul simon) holding sway over indian officialdom.

nonalignment was idiotic then when india was a banana republic, and it is idiotic now when india is getting -- despite the best and continuing efforts of the nehruvians -- to be a more significant player in the world. NAM == talking shop of irrelevant states. note how the NAM founders are all messed up: egypt (so what happened to nasser's arabism?), indonesia (west bullied it into ceding a big chunk of territory in east timor), yugoslavia (has ceased to exist), india (well... too long a tale of woe).

but dhume is wrong when he suggests the answer is to cozy up to the americans and be their sepoy and water-carrier and hewer of logs. the US has only ever respected those who defeated them in battle, or at least impressed them with their martial ability, not those who are servile and grovel at their feet (as india does by foregoing its national interest for the US' sake). the nuclear 'deal', for example, is a huge hoax, as it does nothing for india, and prevents india from keeping even a small nuclear deterrent, or developing its own thorium-based reactors. 

the very question of 'alignment' is passe. india should not be aligning with ANYBODY; it should get others to align WITH INDIA. that is, declare once and for all:

-- that it is not a G2, but a G3 out there: india is going to be one among equals

-- the indian ocean is india's private sea, where india will impose pax indica

-- that it is developing the naval power to enforce the above, with a blue-water navy (including aircraft carrier groups) and submarine-launched nuclear missiles

india should set itself a stretch goal and strategic intent: be number 1, not number 3; and it should acquire an ecosystem of partners which can get it there. alas, india's foreign affairs specialists cannot get over their obsessions with pakistan (a trivial nation) or china (whom india fears irrationally) or the US (all we want is crumbs from the US and esp their media).

india is a rimland; china is a heartland. rimlands are more interesting than heartlands. as america, bankrupt, retreats back across the pacific, it is the indian ocean -- home of the majority of the developing world, including africa and southeast asia, and where the majority of the world's oil and gas moves -- that is more strategically important. and india can control the entire route from the straits of hormuz to the straits of malacca. 80% of the world's oil and a good bit of its trade traverses this stretch.

but for all this, it takes: 

1. vision

2. cojones

3. leadership

all of which are, sadly, lacking. sigh!